kidneyfan wrote: » It is extreme because when a woman chooses to kill her child she doesn't want a guilt trip!:)
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Earlier this year in Poland during a botched abortion a Down Syndrome baby was born alive shortly before the 24-weeks-gestation. According to witnesses it cried for 20 minutes before dying. “The screams of this child were so traumatic for the personnel that they declared that they will never forget it”, “Some say they will leave their job as a result”
“The screams of this child were so traumatic for the personnel that they declared that they will never forget it”, “Some say they will leave their job as a result”
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Earlier this year in Poland during a botched abortion a Down Syndrome baby was born alive shortly before the 24-weeks-gestation. According to witnesses it cried for 20 minutes before dying. Oh and I don't believe Down Syndrome qualifies as a fetal abnormality which justifies abortion.
volchitsa wrote: » Except you're wrong, it certainly is stopping them, it's just that you think that's ok.
So the fact that her widower went to a ProChoice group in despair because he was getting nowhere with any explanation from the hospital has passed you by?
Or perhaps that just doesn't matter when you need to use her death to push your own agenda?
The Arulkumaran report was published on 13 June 2013. It identified three "Key Causal Factors" for the death: inadequate assessment and monitoring; failure to offer all management options to a patient; and non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis. It made six recommendations for improvements in patient care in such situations. Most recommendations called for improvements in healthcare guideline, training and practices, and one recommendation called for legislative changes if necessary to allow for expediting delivery for clinical purposes.
Again all very selective stuff there from you. People regret decisions they've made all the time. Hardly a reason to ban marriage or a career choice, or anything else. Funny that pro life goes on about women having to assume the alleged responsibility that flows merely from having sex, but if a woman regrets her abortion, it implies that all women must be prevented from ever having that choice themselves. What's happened to the woman's individual responsibility for her choices? Having sex even with contraception means she has to stay pregnant, but having an abortion makes her a victim? :rolleyes:
This inherent contradiction in the women’s movement has led to to some interesting situations. Coles is a founder member of Women Hurt, which seeks to provide support for women who regret abortions. They launched a billboard campaign recently, with slogans such as “I was told abortion would solve my problems. It only gave me new ones.” This non-political, non-denominational campaign was roundly attacked as “harsh, cruel and unhelpful” by Susan McKay of the National Women’s Council. It seems that some women do not have the right to speak. A woman like Coles, who has spent a lot of her career trying to achieve equality for women, becomes “harsh, cruel and unhelpful” when she talks about her personal experience.
“While it is difficult to draw firm conclusions, a recent report from the HSE/Crisis Pregnancy Programme showed an increase in the number of women expressing abortion regret. In that study, 44 per cent of women expressed varying degrees of regret about their abortions up from 33 per cent in a similar HSE study in 2003.”
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You cannot compare Tubal ligation with child destruction. Well, I suppose you can if you want... but it's an absurd thing to do. One is a procedure which affects nobody else but the woman concerned (and which I support of course... not that it is any of my business) and the other is the destruction of a developing unborn child who has a body of their own (which is very much my business). Pro choicers talk about pro lifers inflicting their views on them... while they, without any sense of irony.... inflict their views on defenseless developing unborn babies in the womb. These women approached the Pro Life Campaign and so what's the difference. You may say they had pro-life beliefs before going to them with their stories, but Savita's husband had pro choice beliefs before he approached the Pro Choice movement with his, so what's with the double standards? Both groups are going to highlight in accordance with their own agendas. I don't endorse all the Pro Life Campaign does and so it sickens me when pro choicers see no wrong with the crap the Pro Choice movement get up to. You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. I'm not using her death, I am criticizing others for doing so. Abortion Laws were not the sole reason that Savita died as there were other factors involved, much of which was drowned out by the Pro Choice movement at the time but in the end it was all included in the Arulkumaran report into her death. Lot of sanctimonious nonsense with very little retort of the points I made. I am not citing regret as a reason to ban abortion. I am highlighting it as many users on this thread are speaking abortion as if it is just a little procedure women have to benefit their lives and while I don't doubt that it can, it's clear that sometimes it does not and that information is never welcomed, or at least not as much as your average 'go girl' hashtag campaign is. For example, the NWCI response to WomenHurt.ie: But the stats back up that these women are far from alone, even if many would prefer that they kept their mouths shut.
volchitsa wrote: » There's so much that is contradictory and even nonsensical in your posts that I will just point this one out for starters : You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then? Or is just another case of anti choicers actually being fine with their own choices, however contradictory, but not ok to allow the woman herself to make her own choices according to her own opinions, and not your choices and your opinions?
Depp wrote: » good rebuttal, nice little ad hominem retort of the posters personal viewpoint and ignoring the valid points made, you should get a few thumbs up for that!
volchitsa wrote: » I think you need to look up what an ad hominem is. How can it be an ad hominem to point out that his own views are contradictory?
Depp wrote: » attack the poster not the post, you attacked his personal view on 12 weeks vs later and ignored every point he made in the post, think its you that needs to look it up, almost every post you've made in this thread is the same smarmy point scoring bullsh!t don't be so surprised when someone calls you out on it
Depp wrote: » attack the poster not the post,
Depp wrote: » you attacked his personal view on 12 weeks vs later and .................
volchitsa wrote: » You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I plan to vote to repeal the 8th in the hope that it leads to the better legislation on abortion here, hopefully with it being brought into line with that of countries like Spain, where first trimester abortion is legal and late term abortion is also (if the life of the mother is at risk etc.) The reason I would concede to first trimester abortion becoming legal here is not because I have no moral regard for first trimester fetuses, it's because I see what has goes on in other countries where abortion is totally illegal (like Chile) and it hasn't resulted in less abortions at all, just more illegal ones (close to a quarter of a million annually). Also, given that the vast amount of miscarriages occur during first trimester, I think it's really pointless trying to prevent women from obtaining abortions at that stage of pregnancies.
volchitsa wrote: » That's interesting Pete.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I explained my reasoning with the following: Indeed, you yourself replied to that post and said: So interesting you forgot about it
seamus wrote: » Have you got a reputable source on this? That is, an online source without a conservative agenda, and quotes from actual eyewitnesses rather than 20th-hand paraphrases from a pro-life campaigner?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » http://www.fakt.pl/wydarzenia/polska/warszawa/nieudana-aborcja-w-szpitalu-lekarze-kontra-obroncy-zycia/67pn69c
volchitsa wrote: » By "random" I mean random according to your declared views on what the embryo/fetus is - not that it's necessarily a random date for everyone. But you appear to have no physiological or even moral justification (except miscarriages) for choosing that cut-off point in terms of fetal development
volchitsa wrote: » So you read Polish do you? LOL
Clearly your primary source is Lifesite or similar, which is far from objective.
So here's what I see there : the article gives very little in the way of facts - and the plaintiff is a priest from the Polish equivalent of the pro life campaign in Ireland, the reason for the termination is unknown, the allegation is under investigation so no explanation as to why a Catholic hospital (Holy Family)
in a country with abortion laws almost as stringent as Ireland's was carrying out the abortion.
At present abortion is legal in Poland if the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s life or health; if the foetus displays conditions such as Down’s syndrome (and then only if approval for an abortion is given by a medical professional); or if the pregnancy is a result of rape.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » What did you use to translate the article, a potatoe? In the 4th paragraph it states that the abortion was being carried out because the baby was believed to have Down's Syndrome.
As for your tabloid "back-up" well luckily there's google translate - you should have tried it yourself. So here's what I see there : the article gives very little in the way of facts
and the plaintiff is a priest from the Polish equivalent of the pro life campaign in Ireland
the reason for the termination is unknown
thee allegation is under investigation
so no explanation as to why a Catholic hospital (Holy Family) in a country with abortion laws almost as stringent as Ireland's was carrying out the abortion.
At 6 months, that's going to be for the same sorts of reasons that abortions are carried out in Irish hospitals.
And interestingly, the first post under the article was a woman who had begun training as a midwife in the late 80s and who had been a witness to the same custom of leaving premature babies (not aborted) to die rather than try to resuscitate them or even comfort them. It seems to be a Polish habit, which may explain why Life had to accuse the only other Catholic country in Europe of these cruel practices.
It's kind of interesting that British, German or French hospitals, where abortion is legal, don't seem to be such brutal places to babies born at 20+ weeks, compared to Poland.
seamus wrote: » "Probably, but it is not certain it had Down syndrome." is the translation that comes out. That might mean, "we don't know why the abortion was being carried out. It was probably because it had Down's Syndrome".
Any road, since your claim seems to be that abortions aren't humane, this is a really poor source - not least because there's nothing solid in it, but because the fact that the hospital appears to have been breaking the law in what they were doing.
PucaMama wrote: » If the child is already going to die give it pain reflief. Make it comfortable. Don't leave it to die alone on a table. Basic palliative care. Basic human dignity. Is that too much to ask for?
"A Body, is A Body, is A Body, is A Body, is A body..."
Outlaw Pete wrote: » There is nothing 'random' about my support of abortion up to 12 weeks. If you read the post you claim to have then you would have seen that I cited Chile as a perfect example of how a total ban on abortion is counterproductive. Allowing early abortion here would also mean that Irish women would have access to abortion a lot sooner than they would if they had to go to the UK and that in turn would lessen the amount of current later term abortions. If there was way that a total ban on abortions would work, I would have no hesitation in supporting it, but as far as I can see, there isn't.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I don't need to. My browser translates. Nope, quite clearly my original source for the article was TheLiberal.ie given that was the site I originally linked to.
You don't appear to know what you are talking about. Pro choice women in Ireland wish that were the case. Abortion in Poland is available to women who have received pre-birth diagnoses of many conditions. In fact, the vast majority of pre-birth diagnoses of Down's Syndrome result in abortion there. Abortion is also legal in Poland if the pregnancy is a result of rape and look, this time I'm gonna use The Guardian as a source:
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I said nothing to the contrary. The point is that they gave an explanation as to why the abortion was being carried out: there was something wrong with the fetus.
Only because the babies were born alive. That is why there is / was an investigation. They mention that the prosecutor's office is taking issue with three abortions merely because they failed, not because they were carried out to begin with and so that makes it patently clear that there was adequate legal reasons for doing so and in Poland that can only be pre-birth diagnosed conditions, of which Down's Syndrome is one of the most common there, or rape.
In any event, you first of all took issue with my linking to an article because of a source and now you have an issue with the lack of details. Why though? I mean, I'd like more details too but I didn't cite the story as a means of backing up a point that I was making or anything, or even to solidify my position on abortion, I merely mentioned it in response to the following user's post where they spoke about a child dying on a table.
Nobody is claiming the story is anything, or is saying anything, other than precisely what it is. If I wanted to cite examples of horrific botched abortions and bring that element of the abortion debate into the thread, then trust me, I would be citing much different cases than that one.
In other news: this cringe inducing repeal the 8th video that went viral today is laughingly lacking in self awareness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571vnkdrWC0 Unless that body is the body of a developing human fetus it would seem.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » .....I don't need to. My browser translates. What did you use to translate the article, a potatoe? In the 4th paragraph it states that the abortion was being carried out because the baby was believed to have Down's Syndrome.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You're still saying it failed even though it took you six days to realise that the analogy was about the intent behind abortion legislation.... and even then instead of apologizing you laughably accused me of moving goalposts. Glad.to.hear.it.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I linked to different studies at different times for different reasons and so any chance of a little specificity?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » One of those studies I cited was merely to show that the following statement from you was, and is, absurd
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Some response studies tell us very little, that's true, but some tell us a whole damn lot.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » This is why I accuse you of playing to the gallery, as you know that I do not suggest anything regarding sentience.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You never answered the question with respect. Okay, you don't take viability into account, gotcha... but what do you take in account then if you think "we are safe" to abort 21-to-24-week old fetuses at? What are you "iffy" about is what I am asking you.
