One eyed Jack wrote: » It does, because you refuse to acknowledge that other people may speak in whatever context they choose, and they are still just as correct as you are. If you insist upon using the term 'foetus', then one has to assume you're speaking in a medical context, which is entirely irrelevant in terms of the 8th amendment, because the 8th amendment and rights, and perceived rights, are all formed in a legal context, where the term used to refer to human life in a legal context is "the unborn", and that applies not just in Irish law, but also in international law. I'm also hesitant when I meet people who say "we're pregnant". But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.
Absolam wrote: » None of that supports your assertion that they don't legally exist does it? In fact, it all pretty much amounts to the fact that you are patently aware of their legal existence but elected to deny it nonetheless....
B0jangles wrote: » That's a bizarre inversion of what I said. Infogiver is free to call her blastocyte/zygote/foetus/baby whatever she likes, it does not change the fact that there are fundamental differences between the stages of development that each term describes. Insisting that a foetus in the 9th week of development is effectively the same as viable, capable of suviving outside the womb baby is just... incorrect.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It does, because you refuse to acknowledge that other people may speak in whatever context they choose, and they are still just as correct as you are. If you insist upon using the term 'foetus', then one has to assume you're speaking in a medical context, which is entirely irrelevant in terms of the 8th amendment, because the 8th amendment and rights, and perceived rights, are all formed in a legal context, where the term used to refer to human life in a legal context is "the unborn", and that applies not just in Irish law, but also in international law.I'm also hesitant when I meet people who say "we're pregnant". But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.
eviltwin wrote: » Do they legally exist though? Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.
Before witnesses started giving their evidence, the coroner told the inquest he had read a lot of material relating to the registration of the term "birth" saying the issues focus on the ability to prove that someone must have been born before a death certificate can be issued. He added that issues also arise as to how "the unborn child" is defined in an autopsy without being separated from the mother. In his understanding in this case, he said the unborn child was "born" and that it would be within his jurisdiction to assign the status on her that she had therefore died. He said the State has had a number of opportunities in the past to rule or clarify points of law relating to many queries raised by coroners and he said that if they had ruled, then all of the the anguish that families had to go through to address this particular point would have been saved.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't think infogiver insisted that you restrict yourself to her definition though.
infogiver wrote: » Medical terms are used by medical personnel..
infogiver wrote: » Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby. .
notjustsweet wrote: » Sure about that??
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's within a coroners jurisdiction to make that determination, depending upon the circumstances of the case -Inquest hears death certificate will be issued for unborn baby
One eyed Jack wrote: » If I were in your position, I'd be keeping shtum about other people's ability to read, let alone be crowing about your level of education.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm very sure.
notjustsweet wrote: » Wow. So when proof of her forcing her opinion on others is put in front of you then you still disagree. You must know each other then... Maria????
volchitsa wrote: » Just a tad dishonest of you there, perhaps Jack?
That wasn't the final outcome of the case, just a well-meaning attempt by the coroner to see of he could satisfy the grieving family's request. Here's a later article :Father drops case over unborn girl's crash deathLegally it was too much of a hot potato, I suspect. And not just because of abortion. Giving the fetus legal personhood is a very slippery slope in trend of healthcare for pregnant women. In fact even Catholic hospitals aren't too happy with the idea - when it doesn't suit them.Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue fetus is not a person
Mr Enright said he was dropping the constitutional challenge as he had now done everything in his power to have Mollie's existence acknowledged. He had initiated the proceedings in September 2014 seeking that Mollie be recognised as a person and also seeking clarification on how her existence should be recorded.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I wasn't being dishonest. It's the only case I could think would even come close to answering eviltwin's question. I don't think you're being dishonest at all, but that's not why the case didn't proceed either, at least not according to the article you linked to yourself - Mr. Enright dropped the case as he was satisfied that their unborn daughters existence was acknowledged. I agree that it was a hot potato of a case, and it would have made interesting case law, but the State got lucky IMO that Mr. Enright decided to drop the case.
volchitsa wrote: » But on the actual point, it's untrue that the state has done or will do what you were implying, i.e., grant a legal existence to the unborn. Because the coroner's suggestion that he could do so was based on the claim that the baby was "born" when removed during the autopsy, so not actually because of the 8th anyway.
I do agree that it would have been fascinating to see the prolifers tying themselves in knots over it, though, if it had gone to court. I would just worry that some poor woman or women would yet again have paid the price before sense reigned. Only for that I'd be all for testing that sort of "the unborn is a person" claim in court.
Samsgirl wrote: » Either is an ectopic pregnancy where the pregnancy is terminated as it is not viable. Surely the pro life brigade should be objecting to these procedures if they are that adamant that the life of the unborn trumps the life of the pregnant lady? I am not saying that to be anyway disrespectful to anyone who has suffered an ectopic pregnancy. I myself have gone through this.
sean8carthy wrote: » Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8
PopePalpatine wrote: » They have a way of weaselling out of it.
January wrote: » I have no problem with anyone referring to the fetus growing inside their body as a baby. In fact I've done it myself, I still do it now with other people (I don't say 'how are you and the fetus doing?' to my clients, friends, family etc). So stop shrieking 'all women who have abortions are triggered by the word baby in reference to a growing fetus'.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So what if YOU have no problem with it?! Nice to hear but some clearly do and it is THEIR comments to which the user's post are in response to and as OEJ has pointed out, they haven't insisted on anything themselves. I've been involved in enough of these debates also and I can assure you it is usually the other side of the debate which first take issue with the terminology being used. 'There is no baby!' a prime example of the kind of remark that gets flung at me in response to a point I'll have made so the user has a legitimate point... as does anyone, by the way, that gets told they shouldn't be using the word fetus. Both criticisms are equally as annoying.
notjustsweet wrote: » A few pages back I commented about how infogiver drops into the thread every few days and makes a nasty comment, starts a row about wording and disappears again. See what I mean?? The discussion is now mainly about words because of her little games.
Can we maybe drop the fetus/baby issue and all agree both are equally acceptable?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'd suggest you were just seeing what you wanted to see there. I bailed out of the thread because the intent of my posts were being wilfully misconstrued instead of posters making any attempt to foster discussion or make any genuine attempt to understand where other posters were coming from. There were posts since that quite honestly I couldn't be arsed entertaining because addressing them wouldn't have added anything to the discussion. Posters are perfectly entitled to come and go from a thread as they please, and one of the other reasons I didn't get back to the thread to address some of the points raised is because I was busy all week, and addressing a post from a couple of pages back, when the thread has moved on, would have been pointless IMO. Would you have an issue with the correct use of the term 'the unborn', specifically with reference to the 8th amendment in the Irish Constition? I'm willing to accept that even in International law, the term 'unborn child' is contentious, but it's an entirely acceptable term in that context.
notjustsweet wrote: I do see your point re 'the unborn' and if that's the term you prefer to use then use it, in general use, people will tend to say either fetus or baby because it's more natural to them. I personally don't think it matters what word we use when we are all aware what we are referring to. Rational adults should be able to discuss important matters without getting overly emotional about words...well we'd hope so
