nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

aloyisious

Re your " Very gnomic" you're not from Zurich, by any chance?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

How would this [the difference is that one is legal, and the other is not"] make a difference to the feotus in the final analysis of what happened to it in either case? Surely it would be dead?

Does it have to make a difference to the foetus? You asked how does the deed differ, not what difference does it make to the foetus. Still...

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that the "one is legal, and the other is not" would only have an effect in respect of the medical staff present and involved in the medical procedure.

Well, it would certainly affect them, no doubt, and would go some way towards them deciding whether or not they should undertake the procedure at all. Since it might very well cause them to decide not to undertake the procedure as a result of one being legal and the other not, that affects both the pregnant woman and the foetus too; one will be pregnant, or not, as a result, and the other will be alive, or not, as a result.

Though I must confess all that seemed rather obvious at first glance...

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your " Very gnomic" you're not from Zurich, by any chance?

Nope.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

PS. I reread what you wrote in your 2nd last post, and edited my response to it to include several extra paragraphs and questions. Perhaps you could scroll back, read those new para's and reply with your thoughts on them?

Perhaps you'd like to simply post your new thoughts and questions in a new post instead? It keeps the flow of things rather tidier I think.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it would certainly affect them, no doubt, and would go some way towards them deciding whether or not they should undertake the procedure at all. Since it might very well cause them to decide not to undertake the procedure as a result of one being legal and the other not, that affects both the pregnant woman and the foetus too; one will be pregnant, or not, as a result, and the other will be alive, or not, as a result.

Possibly a medical non-intervention, due to doubts in the minds of the medical team of what an actual medical intervention's legal outcome would be, would run the risk of having as an end result the death of both the woman and the unborn feotus. Not exactly the best outcome for them, or either the woman or the feotus.

It's not necessary for anyone to scroll back through their memories or media sources to find a precedent of such an event here in Ireland, what happened in University Hospital Galway in 2012 is a sad part of Irish Pre-POLDPA History. I thought POLDPA was brought into law to help prevent a repeat of such an event.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Possibly a medical non-intervention, due to doubts in the minds of the medical team of what an actual medical intervention's legal outcome would be, would run the risk of having as an end result the death of both the woman and the unborn feotus. Not exactly the best outcome for them, or either the woman or the feotus.

I'm a little dubious as to how a medical non intervention is different from simply doing nothing... but you certainly seem to be disagreeing with your previous statement "It seem's to me that the "one is legal, and the other is not" would only have an effect in respect of the medical staff present and involved in the medical procedure."; you're now saying it could have an effect on the mother and child, as far as I can tell? Which would be what I said already.... However, I should point out that if the medical circumstances were such that, as you say, they could result in the death of both the woman and the unborn feotus, then the medical staff are reasonably likely to think there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life, wouldn't you say? In which case, they will know that carrying out a medical procedure in respect of that pregnant woman in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended would be lawful, because the POLDPA says so, and would not be the intentional destruction of unborn human life, again, because the POLDPA says so. So it looks like it has that angle covered, which is good, because that's what it's for.

aloyisious wrote: »

It's not necessary for anyone to scroll back through their memories or media sources to find a precedent of such an event here in Ireland, what happened in University Hospital Galway in 2012 is a sad part of Irish Pre-POLDPA History. I thought POLDPA was brought into law to help prevent a repeat of such an event.

Perhaps you're mistaken then? I'd suggest that the facts of the event in question may very well not support the conclusions you drew separately above, so a review of the facts might lead you to different conclusions.

aloyisious

The above post by absolom, including as it does original quotes from him within larger quotes from me, giving the impression his quotes are mine, is disingenuous in the extreme and deliberately disinformative as well. I had written a large direct response to his above showing him his deliberate attempts at disinformation but realised that I would be making what I wanted to avoid, a direct connect with him.

The difference between medical non-intervention and simply doing nothing, in reference to what was being discussed, maybe some-one can show him.

I regret that he "apparently" think's that what happened in University Hospital Galway in 2012 had nothing to do with the later introduction into law of POLDPA.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The above post by absolom, including as it does original quotes from him within larger quotes from me, giving the impression his quotes are mine, is disingenuous in the extreme and deliberately disinformative as well. I had written a large direct response to his above showing him his deliberate attempts at disinformation but realised that I would be making what I wanted to avoid, a direct connect with him.

It's funny how that seems to happen whenever a conversation gets specific...

aloyisious wrote: »

The difference between medical non-intervention and simply doing nothing, in reference to what was being discussed, maybe some-one can show him.

Maybe you could; it's your notion after all.

aloyisious wrote: »

I regret that he "apparently" think's that what happened in University Hospital Galway in 2012 had nothing to do with the later introduction into law of POLDPA.

I really doubt you do, but since that's not what I said I guess neither of us need trouble ourselves over it :-)

aloyisious

Pax (even if it's not in the ecclesiastical meaning of the word) ?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

If Mr Wallace's Bill were to pass, and an Act to be found Constitutional (and unfortunately I doubt it will pass), it would certainly damage any possibility of a referendum on the 8th, and hurt the yes vote should such a referendum come to pass. From Robdonns polls,it's pretty apparent that a large proportion of the support for a repeal campaign is based on FFA.

While I don't believe that either of the two polls I quoted showed what level of support repealing the 8th is based on FFA ( I think it was just given as an example in one of the questions) I do completely agree that, ironically, if this were to pass then it would hurt the end-goals of the pro-choice movement to have abortion legal for FFA, rape/incest and harm to health.

I'm curious about the "unfortunately I doubt it will pass" in your post, is that because you agree with providing the option of abortion in cases of FFA, or is it because you know it would push back the need for a referendum on the 8th? Or both?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

While I don't believe that either of the two polls I quoted showed what level of support repealing the 8th is based on FFA ( I think it was just given as an example in one of the questions) I do completely agree that, ironically, if this were to pass then it would hurt the end-goals of the pro-choice movement to have abortion legal for FFA, rape/incest and harm to health.

Wasn't the Irish Times poll you provided based entirely on the premise of "so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal"? I think if the question had been phrased "so that terminations in, for example, the case of regret following a one night stand or impending holiday plans could be made legal" it probably would have generated a different response... so it's reasonably indicative of the level of support for repealing the 8th that's based on FFA I'd say. And if you think if this were to pass then it would hurt the end-goals of the pro-choice movement to have abortion legal for FFA, rape/incest and harm to health, then I think deep down you probably think the same.

robdonn wrote: »

I'm curious about the "unfortunately I doubt it will pass" in your post, is that because you agree with providing the option of abortion in cases of FFA, or is it because you know it would push back the need for a referendum on the 8th? Or both?

Because I think it's a genuine attempt to provide a solution to a heart breaking situation for many people, and I would like to see more direction from the Supreme Court on the scope that's available. The only way that could happen is if the Bill passes and the President refers it to the SC to test its Constitutionality.

Whilst it is my feeling (ie my emotional response) that abortion should be allowed in the case of FFA, it is my understanding (my intellectual response) that it should not. If we consider the same circumstances for a person who is no longer confined to their mothers womb, we find that a terminally ill person may choose to end their own life. A terminally ill person who does not have the capacity to make such decisions for themselves (much like an unborn child) has others empowered to make decisions on their behalf (think legal guardians, analogous to prospective parents of unborn children). However, those guardians do not have the facility to choose to take action that will end the life of the terminally ill person, even if they may choose to make no further medical intervention to prolong that life. I can see no reason not to apply the same standard of care to an unborn person as we do to a born person.

Regardless of a guardians wishes, there is no obligation on a Doctor to start or continue a treatment, or artificial nutrition and hydration, that is futile or disproportionately burdensome, even if such treatment may prolong life. Their guidelines say they should carefully consider when to start and when to stop attempts to prolong life, while ensuring that patients receive appropriate pain management and relief from distress; this again is something that I believe should be the same for an unborn person who is terminally ill as it is for a born person who is terminally ill.
A doctor may not participate in the deliberate killing of a patient by active means, and again I don't see why that should differ for an unborn person compared to a born person. All of which leads me to the conclusion that to permit abortion in the case of FFA would be as wrong as permitting euthanasia in the case of terminal illness.

Where it may be the circumstance that the unborn person is only being sustained in the womb by artificial intervention, then it seems to me that withdrawing that intervention is the same as a Doctor stopping attempts to prolong the life of any other terminally ill patient, and could be decided in precisely the same fashion, thinking which I believe is in line with the decision of the High Court in P.P -v- Health Service Executive, but I don't believe that could be classed as abortion, since it would only permit the termination of the pregnancy after, or at the time of, the death of the unborn child.

Which, on reflection, may be rather more long winded than you expected... but there it is

aloyisious

Pardon me for asking a question but the above debate made me consider what the definition of a pregnancy within the womb of a woman is. On the question of when a woman is considered pregnant, there is this; Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus.

Does a pregnancy still continue as a fact, whether or not the feotus is alive or dead within the womb, or are the words pregnancy and pregnant only words used to describe the presence of a live feotus in the womb?

I was guided in my last question by absolom on reading this from his last post, as I had in mind that the feotus in the woman's womb was actually dead: Where it may be the circumstance that the unborn person is only being sustained in the womb by artificial intervention, then it seems to me that withdrawing that intervention is the same as a Doctor stopping attempts to prolong the life of any other terminally ill patient, and could be decided in precisely the same fashion, thinking which I believe is in line with the decision of the High Court in P.P -v- Health Service Executive, but I don't believe that could be classed as abortion, since it would only permit the termination of the pregnancy after, or at the time of, the death of the unborn child.

robdonn

aloyisious wrote: »

Pardon me for asking a question but the above debate made me consider what the definition of a pregnancy within the womb of a woman is. On the question of when a woman is considered pregnant, there is this; Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus.

Does a pregnancy still continue as a fact, whether or not the feotus is alive or dead within the womb, or are the words pregnancy and pregnant only words used to describe the presence of a live feotus in the womb?

I was guided in my last question by absolom on reading this from his last post, as I had in mind that the feotus in the woman's womb was actually dead: Where it may be the circumstance that the unborn person is only being sustained in the womb by artificial intervention, then it seems to me that withdrawing that intervention is the same as a Doctor stopping attempts to prolong the life of any other terminally ill patient, and could be decided in precisely the same fashion, thinking which I believe is in line with the decision of the High Court in P.P -v- Health Service Executive, but I don't believe that could be classed as abortion, since it would only permit the termination of the pregnancy after, or at the time of, the death of the unborn child.

AFAIK a pregnancy is a pregnancy even if the fetus is dead, but I could be wrong about that.

Absolam

The word pregnant means having a baby or babies developing inside the body, or having possibilities of development or consequence. I would suggest the term pregnant would no longer accurately apply if the foetus were no longer developing, though I imagine most people would not bother (or care) to make such a fine distinction in general usage.

aloyisious

Ta for the replies, I may come up with more questions after slow consideration of their content and further reading of pregnancies.

aloyisious

The Court of Appeal in Belfast has just started hearing the appeal by the N.I. Attorney General of the N.I High Court's ruling that N.I. law on abortion affected the civil rights of N.I citizens. The High Court ruling came from a case brought by the N.I. Human Rights Commission. The A.G. is reported to have made the appeal following requests to him by Pro-Life groups there to do so.

inocybe

robdonn wrote: »

AFAIK a pregnancy is a pregnancy even if the fetus is dead, but I could be wrong about that.

If a fetus dies in the womb it will either spontaneously abort or kill the mother through infection. More to the point is whether a pregnancy is a pregnancy when what is developing is a body without a brain. To deny a woman a termination at say 18 weeks and condemn her to a full term birth with all the pain and physical effects is in my opinion nothing short of torture. Shame on anyone forcing that on another human being.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

More to the point is whether a pregnancy is a pregnancy when what is developing is a body without a brain.

I'm not sure that's true; obviously for the first four weeks of a pregnancy there's no brain, but there's a pregnancy. Nor do any of the definitions I've seen mention a brain, and a child can develop (bar the brain part) and be born without a brain... so I don't think a brain is a requirement for it to be termed a pregnancy. I accept that you'd probably prefer it weren't called a pregnancy though.

Lingua Franca

aloyisious wrote: »

The Court of Appeal in Belfast has just started hearing the appeal by the N.I. Attorney General of the N.I High Court's ruling that N.I. law on abortion affected the civil rights of N.I citizens. The High Court ruling came from a case brought by the N.I. Human Rights Commission. The A.G. is reported to have made the appeal following requests to him by Pro-Life groups there to do so.

The A.G. there wouldn't need pro life groups to make that request, he's on a pro life crusade himself. At point he "offered" to investigate the Marie Stopes clinic and was refused since A. it wasn't in need of investigation, nor was there any talk of investigation and B. he's been chatting happily to the media for years regarding his prolife views.

He has somewhat of a habit of meddling where's he's not supposed to. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20068474

How that man still holds the position he does, given that he's such a loose cannon and misuses his office, is beyond me.

(I'd say that even if I agreed with him, by the way. He's not one bit objective and he abuses his office to push his agenda.)

aloyisious

The Mayo Clinic has this on the growth of a feotus, including the start of brain and brainstem growth. I'll have to check more for equally reputable medical establishments on when monitoring of that growth becomes usual in hospitals and when evidence of no growth or definite absence of growth leading to medical diagnosis of anencephaly.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnkP2Y5bbNAhUqKsAKHfiYDBwQFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mayoclinic.org%2Fhealthy-lifestyle%2Fpregnancy-week-by-week%2Fin-depth%2Fprenatal-care%2Fart-20045302&usg=AFQjCNGtqA3bO4iQzXmwHdXGJoBeZpfxHA

aloyisious

This might be Enda-Govt plan for convention on 8th amendment issue.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/judge-may-chair-convention-looking-at-eighth-amendment-1.2692675

The link below is to an opinion-piece by Jacky Jones, a former Health Service Executive regional manager of health promotion and a member of the Healthy Ireland Council.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/vindicating-women-s-rights-does-not-lead-to-chaos-1.2685668

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a crazy thought: the two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe we should aim to reduce child rape, while also ensuring that victims of child rape don't have the trauma compounded by unwanted pregnancy.

Too rational?

Maybe we shouldn't conflate the two either.

walshyn93

Cabaal wrote: »

So the pro-life crowd actually have no problem with women traveling to have an abortion even though they see it as murder?

Thats very odd, so its only murder in Ireland? Or they put less of a value on a fetus on UK soil?

Yes it is in fact murder by definition in this country. It is not England so there is no grounds to restrict freedom of movement.

Imagine preventing a Texas lawman from returning from his holliers in Ireland to execute a man on death row on the grounds that the death penalty was outlawed here. We have no business interfering in foreign affairs.

aloyisious

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yes it is in fact murder by definition in this country. It is not England so there is no grounds to restrict freedom of movement.

Imagine preventing a Texas lawman from returning from his holliers in Ireland to execute a man on death row on the grounds that the death penalty was outlawed here. We have no business interfering in foreign affairs.

There would likely be some on the Pro-life side who would probably claim that a pregnant Irish woman heading abroad for an abortion is going to end the life of another Irish person (while the said other person is still a feotus within her womb). The word END would probably be substituted by the word KILL. All history now following the SC court ruling on our basic freedom-to-travel guarantee in the constitution.

Edit: I'm not sure if, by murder relating to an abortion carried out within this jurisdiction, you are using a definition in a dictionary or an Irish Criminal law book. Can you identify the book?

I know that abortion is a criminal offence but not to the scale of murder. The only person I know of convicted of murder in relation to an abortion was Mamie Cadden in '56 in Dublin and it was in relation to a patient dying as a result of the illegal abortion.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yes it is in fact murder by definition in this country. It is not England so there is no grounds to restrict freedom of movement.

Imagine preventing a Texas lawman from returning from his holliers in Ireland to execute a man on death row on the grounds that the death penalty was outlawed here. We have no business interfering in foreign affairs.

That's an extraordinary rendition...

Cabaal

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yes it is in fact murder by definition in this country. It is not England so there is no grounds to restrict freedom of movement.

Imagine preventing a Texas lawman from returning from his holliers in Ireland to execute a man on death row on the grounds that the death penalty was outlawed here. We have no business interfering in foreign affairs.

Actually we do and the UK government regularly do,
You don't think if the UK gov becomes aware of somebody traveling to Syria to fight that they won't try and stop them? Of course they do!

If a family in Ireland wished to travel with their kids to a country so they could enter their 9 and 10 year old into an army to be child soldiers then I'd sure as hell want the Irish government to take action to stop it.

The same should apply here,
If you really truly believe abortion is murder then you should try and stop abortions happening and that includes women traveling to commit them......anything else is hypocritical

Absolam

That reminds me... how are you getting on with your lobbying to ban travelling for murder?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

That reminds me... how are you getting on with your lobbying to ban travelling for murder?

Yet more sillyness from you,
I'm pro-choice so only an idiot would think I would be lobbying to stop women traveling for abortions.
:rolleyes:

If a person is "pro-life" then they are pro-life regardless of the country, people who are fine with exporting "murder" are nothing but hypo critics. Until the day they lobby to stop exporting "murder" then it shows that they don't give a ****e.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Yet more sillyness from you,
I'm pro-choice so only an idiot would think I would be lobbying to stop women traveling for abortions.
:rolleyes:
If a person is "pro-life" then they are pro-life regardless of the country, people who are fine with exporting "murder" are nothing but hypo critics. Until the day they lobby to stop exporting "murder" then it shows that they don't give a ****e.

But, but.... I said murder, not abortion! Like you did, remember? :rolleyes:
Or have you actually begin lobbying to stop us exporting murder and not told us? Perhaps you don't give a ****e?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

But, but.... I said murder, not abortion! Like you did, remember? :rolleyes:
Or have you actually begin lobbying to stop us exporting murder and not told us? Perhaps you don't give a ****e?

Seriously, do you get some sort of frequent flyer miles for the whataboutery nonsense you post in threats? Between this crap and marrying animals in the Christianity forum its beyond a joke at this stage.

Very clearly the mention of murder references the pro-life side claim that abortion is equal to that of murder, once again only an idiot would believe that I would be lobbying to stop women traveling to have abortions.

Anything else is just more whataboutery crap from you, as per normal.