Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-11-2017 06:45PM

January wrote: »

It's not justified, it's an outdated law that the UN state is against human rights. Women have been compensated by the Irish government because they've had to travel for their abortions, what does that tell you?

The life of a fetus does not trump my life or the life of the children I already have, why should it? You never seem to answer those questions. You say the government give support to people who can't afford to raise babies, you're aware that doesn't even half cover the needs of the child being raised yes?

It tells me that the law and our lawmakers are idiots.

January · 19-11-2017 06:52PM

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

It tells me that the law and our lawmakers are idiots.

That's one thing we can agree on, but probably for different reasons.

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 06:53PM

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

It tells me that the law and our lawmakers are idiots.

Sometimes when it's everyone else....

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-11-2017 06:55PM

January wrote: »

When it is born is the short answer there, scientifically a baby becomes a fetus when it leaves the body of the person carrying it.

Until then it's medically referred to as a fetus.

So it's not a baby until it's born so I assume based on that logic that it can be aborted up to that point.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 06:55PM

January wrote: »

It's not justified, it's an outdated law that the UN state is against human rights. Women have been compensated by the Irish government because they've had to travel for their abortions, what does that tell you?

it tells me the state were stupid to pay. the law is fine. i often agree with the UN but not on this. they have got it wrong.

January wrote: »

The life of a fetus does not trump my life or the life of the children I already have, why should it?

the life of the unborn trumps your right for abortion on demand.

January · 19-11-2017 06:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

it tells me the state were stupid to pay. the law is fine. i often agree with the UN but not on this. they have got it wrong.

It was mandated by the european courts, they'd have been stupid not to have paid. The UN have got it wrong? I doubt that very much.

end of the road wrote: »

the life of the unborn trumps your right for abortion on demand.

Not for much longer anyway according to opinion polls.

January · 19-11-2017 07:01PM

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

So it's not a baby until it's born so I assume based on that logic that it can be aborted up to that point.

Canada has abortion on demand until birth, do we see abortions happening there at 39 weeks?

Women who have abortions past 20 weeks aren't doing it for the craic. It also accounts for very low numbers of abortions compared to those that happen before 12 weeks.

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 07:06PM

end of the road wrote: »

it tells me the state were stupid to pay. the law is fine. i often agree with the UN but not on this. they have got it wrong.

The ECHR recognises the hypocrisy of allowing information, travel, pre- and post-abortion consultation/care while simultaneously putting barriers to the necessary services only for those without the ability or means to travel.

end of the road wrote: »

the life of the unborn trumps your right for abortion on demand.

Abortion on request is already available to Irish women - they even get discounted rates from abortion services - the only impediment the 8th places on those seeking to end a pregnancy is having to travel to a different jurisdiction to avail of those services. That's not protectionism for the unborn that stricter travel and information laws would achieve, it's a class tax by any other name.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 07:13PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think anyone would object to a woman referring to her unborn in any way she wants. Some people call them "the Bean" and other pet names. I don't think that means they imagine they really are pulses, so no need for anyone to "correct" that terminology in normal conversation.

The issue of correct terminology arises when people use the word baby to create a moral equivalence with the pregnant woman so as to justify refusing the woman the right to continued control over her own body. That does require correction. IMO.

Given that it's medical professionals would be the people making the decision as to whether or not a woman be permitted to avail of a termination of her pregnancy (and indeed just how the pregnancy is terminated, and the outcomes of a termination of her pregnancy), I don't see that there's any difference for them in the terminology that is used.

I know for example that you have a considerable background in medicine and biology, so I would understand why you would more often than not use the term foetus, I understand that it would seem unnatural to use any other terminology, but for people who aren't medical professionals, and don't have a considerable background in biology, they're more often than not, going to use the terminology that they're familiar with. The moral equivalence already exists because of the way we are conditioned by society to use familiar concepts and language to communicate and share ideas.

I'm a bit unsettled when I hear people use the phrase "we're pregnant", because obviously they aren't both pregnant, but that's the way the language around the concept of human reproduction appears to be evolving, like the British Medical Association encouraging the use of the expression "pregnant person" in place of "pregnant women", so that it does not exclude trans or intersex men -

UK lobbies for trans rights in UN treaty but allows term ‘pregnant women’

end of the road · 19-11-2017 07:14PM

January wrote: »

It was mandated by the european courts, they'd have been stupid not to have paid. The UN have got it wrong? I doubt that very much.

not at all, the state don't have to give you abortion on demand, and have no obligation to pay you anything if that is what you choose. nothing could be done, the state should have said no way we won't pay.

January wrote: »

Not for much longer anyway according to opinion polls.

i wouldn't bank on it. opinion polls can only give so much information. it will depend on how hysterical both campaign groups are when it comes to it.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

The ECHR recognises the hypocrisy of allowing information, travel, pre- and post-abortion consultation/care while simultaneously putting barriers to the necessary services only for those without the ability or means to travel.

Abortion on request is already available to Irish women - they even get discounted rates from abortion services - the only impediment the 8th places on those seeking to end a pregnancy is having to travel to a different jurisdiction to avail of those services. That's not protectionism for the unborn that stricter travel and information laws would achieve, it's a class tax by any other name.

it's not no, it's a law that gives protection as much as is possible for the life of the unborn. if it protects 1 it's done it's job.

....... · 19-11-2017 07:17PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 19-11-2017 07:18PM

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 07:21PM

January wrote: »

When it is born is the short answer there, scientifically a baby becomes a fetus when it leaves the body of the person carrying it.

Which is like saying a carrot is not a carrot until it is pulled from the ground.

volchitsa · 19-11-2017 07:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given that it's medical professionals would be the people making the decision as to whether or not a woman be permitted to avail of a termination of her pregnancy (and indeed just how the pregnancy is terminated, and the outcomes of a termination of her pregnancy), I don't see that there's any difference for them in the terminology that is used.

I know for example that you have a considerable background in medicine and biology, so I would understand why you would more often than not use the term foetus, I understand that it would seem unnatural to use any other terminology, but for people who aren't medical professionals, and don't have a considerable background in biology, they're more often than not, going to use the terminology that they're familiar with. The moral equivalence already exists because of the way we are conditioned by society to use familiar concepts and language to communicate and share ideas.

I'm a bit unsettled when I hear people use the phrase "we're pregnant", because obviously they aren't both pregnant, but that's the way the language around the concept of human reproduction appears to be evolving, like the British Medical Association encouraging the use of the expression "pregnant person" in place of "pregnant women", so that it does not exclude trans or intersex men -

UK lobbies for trans rights in UN treaty but allows term ‘pregnant women’

I'm not too sure what you're saying there, TBH.

People (couples as well as the pregnant woman) invest emotionally in a wanted pregnancy, sometimes even before it has begun. Read any account by a couple going through infertility treatment, and the grief they feel at every non-pregnancy every month is as overwhelming as the loss of an actual pregnancy for many. A weeks delay in a woman's period can be "a baby!" to her, possibly without there ever having been a fertilized egg there at all.

So what people feel about a pregnancy and an unborn baby tells us very little about what it is objectively. What they call it, even less.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 07:32PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the law allows for abortion in extreme circumstances, so women are protected. it just doesn't allow for abortion on demand.

volchitsa · 19-11-2017 07:38PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Which is like saying a carrot is not a carrot until it is pulled from the ground.

It's not. The carrot is fully grown when it's pulled or at least its growth stops at that point. That's not the case for the baby, which has barely begun its growth at birth, and in fact would, die if not removed from the womb within a short time anyway.

Birth is much closer to the idea of a change in the nature of growth : like an acorn that sprouts into a sapling. The sapling still isn't an oak tree, but is much closer to one than the acorn stage was.

volchitsa · 19-11-2017 07:39PM

end of the road wrote: »

the law allows for abortion in extreme circumstances, so women are protected. it just doesn't allow for abortion on demand.

Only if you think a woman's health or future fertility are unimportant qualities that she is not entitled to preserve if she chooses to.

And then there's the question of whose problem it is when the risk to a woman's life is not spotted in time, even when the fetus is not going to be saved anyway. Does Savita Halappanavar mean anything to you?

rainbow kirby · 19-11-2017 07:39PM

end of the road wrote: »

the law allows for abortion in extreme circumstances, so women are protected. it just doesn't allow for abortion on demand.

If a pregnancy is likely to cause permanent damage to a woman's health but may not necessarily kill her then she cannot choose to end it in Ireland. That's not protecting women.

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 07:40PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 07:45PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not no, it's a law that gives protection as much as is possible for the life of the unborn. if it protects 1 it's done it's job.

it is - and that makes zero sense.

The abortion laws in Ireland are more relaxed than they used to be. That clearly doesn't equate to a law that provides "protection as much as possible for the life of the unborn"...if that was in any way the intention then there would have been no changes to the constitution or resulting legislative changes.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Which is like saying a carrot is not a carrot until it is pulled from the ground.

And the to-ing and fro-ing about what constitutes a baby, ironically, only exemplifies why using such a term in a discussion that is time relevant is self-defeating. I use fetus because it describes a more distinct period in development relevant to abortion - we could just as easily discuss blastocytes, zygotes, morula, embryos and so on through the 23 Carnegie stages and beyond. Baby is a term so ambiguous it can be used interchangeably from the time of a positive pregnancy test right up to toddler-hood and beyond, which suits the anti-choice narrative. Much easier to dismiss the rights of an adult sentient woman to bodily integrity when comparing with a bouncing, rosy cheeked "baby" than admitting you consider her worth little more than an unwilling vessel for a non-sentient fetus.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 07:47PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not too sure what you're saying there, TBH.
...

So what people feel about a pregnancy and an unborn baby tells us very little about what it is objectively. What they call it, even less.

What I'm saying there is that essentially it boils down to this -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The moral equivalence already exists because of the way we are conditioned by society to use familiar concepts and language to communicate and share ideas.

There really isn't any objectivity in any context, it's entirely subjective and depends upon the context in which you're speaking, so whether it's referred to as a baby, the unborn, the embryo, the foetus, a parasite, a bunch of cells, they're all correct and appropriate terminology, just in different contexts, each weighted by their own moral equivalence.

You can insist on using whatever terminology is correct only for yourself, you can't insist that other people are using incorrect terminology because it doesn't suit your ('ypur' plural, as in it applies to anyone as an individual) morality, which is entirely subjective.

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 07:50PM

rainbow kirby wrote: »

If a pregnancy is likely to cause permanent damage to a woman's health but may not necessarily kill her then she cannot choose to end it in Ireland. That's not protecting women.

Apart from pregnancies that involve babies with a ffa, are there any specific conditions where a pregnancy is likely to cause "permanent damage to a woman's health" as opposed to there being a danger with regards to loss of life? Not saying there's not, just interested in what they might be.

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-11-2017 08:08PM

January wrote: »

Canada has abortion on demand until birth, do we see abortions happening there at 39 weeks?

Women who have abortions past 20 weeks aren't doing it for the craic. It also accounts for very low numbers of abortions compared to those that happen before 12 weeks.

That's all right then ...isn't it?
Its feticide not infanticide, its not really a baby.
So I assume you never referred to any of your children as babies when you were pregnant.

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 08:15PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Apart from pregnancies that involve babies with a ffa, are there any specific conditions where a pregnancy is likely to cause "permanent damage to a woman's health" as opposed to there being a danger with regards to loss of life? Not saying there's not, just interested in what they might be.

Off the top of my head re physical health; symphysis pubis dysfunction, [pre]eclampsia, gestational diabetes can all cause lasting issues. More seriously there are issues around delaying potentially life-saving or life altering treatments because they are teratogenic. There's also women's mental health and the damage carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, particularly regardless of circumstance, can cause.

volchitsa · 19-11-2017 08:22PM

Another is prolonged miscarriage : even if Savita Halappanavar's life had been saved through prompter action, any unnecessary delay, such as 24 hours spent hoping the fetus' heartbeat will stop of its own accord, would almost certainly have left her with sub or infertility, and very likely chronic pelvic pain. That's assuming she didn't have to have an emergency hysterectomy, which in her early thirties would have put her at risk of all sorts of issues related to premature menopause,

....... · 19-11-2017 08:23PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 19-11-2017 08:25PM

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 08:28PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Much easier to dismiss the rights of an adult sentient woman to bodily integrity....

Firstly, if you truly believed in bodily integrity in the context of pregnancies, you'd support a woman procuring an elective abortion the week the "fetus" was due to make their appearance, but you wouldn't (no sane person would) and so cut the bodily integrity rubbish.

Secondly, it's nobody's goal to dismiss the rights of women, indeed half of those who oppose abortion on demand are women and all of them have females in their lives. Just because people like you try and frame those who disagree with you as angry, old, white, bible tjumping misogynists, doesn't mean that's what they are.

...when comparing with a bouncing, rosy cheeked "baby"

Well, you say that as if it's a farcical thing to do, like they'd just said sperm had a right to life, but 24 weeks is the limit in the UK and here's a "fetus" born at that stage:

Not exactly the clump of cells some would have us believe prenatal human babies to be. Of course I''m sure Mr. 'We're Safe To Abort At 24 Weeks' will be along any minute to tell us this baby is just merely "baby shaped" and condescendingly add no doubt how it's understandably that we feel how we do as a result.

..than admitting you consider her worth little more than an unwilling vessel for a non-sentient fetus.

I don't know of anyone who would see a pregnant woman in that way and sentience is just a shape shifting red herring.

....... · 19-11-2017 08:33PM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 19-11-2017 08:35PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Firstly, if you truly believed in bodily integrity in the context of pregnancies, you'd support a woman procuring an elective abortion the week the "fetus" was due to make their appearance, but you wouldn't (no sane person would) and so cut the bodily integrity rubbish.

This is just nonsense. An "abortion" the week before a baby is due is just a premature birth, and anyway the claim that women would decide to end their pregnancies for the hell of it if they weren't prevented from doing so by others is sheer misogynistic sh1te.
[/QUOTE]

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Comments