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

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 08:37PM

volchitsa wrote: »

.... 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 were such a claim was made, please.

....... · 19-11-2017 08:38PM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 08:40PM

....... wrote: »

Who cares if it's a baby or not?

It's rights do not trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends for survival.

Clearly, as has even been demonstrated in this thread alone, quite a number of people care how it is defined, as how it is defined determines it's value, and in a thread about whether or not it will be born with downs syndrome is to either add to, or reduce a persons value to society, it's understandable that how it is defined is pretty damned important to a lot of people!!

But with regards to the question of legal rights, there is only one right that is considered and weighed which applies to both the unborn, and to the woman - the right to life. That's it. Neither holder of said legal right automatically trumps the other. Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe which grants the legal right to life to the unborn, and vindicates and protects that right to life as far as is practical (that's why the State isn't going to chase women on airplanes leaving the country - it's entirely impractical!).

It's left to the judiciary to determine the balance of the right to life in cases where there are competing interests, and that's why the unborn is also represented by a guardian ad litem in cases where conflicts of interest do arise. This is all very basic stuff btw, and none of the smart arsery or moral judgements and silliness that's gone on in this thread and many others before it.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 08:41PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you are making up things i have never stated. seems to be a common theme with some pro-abortion on demandists. i'm as far from a misogynist as it gets by the way, and plenty of posts here to back it up.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no they are equal, hence the laws in ireland insure as much as is practical that the unborn gets protection

....... · 19-11-2017 08:43PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 08:45PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

maybe he didn't know the child died? that is possible believe it or not.
but much easier to creat a monster i suppose then to engage in an actual conversation on the issue. another thing that seems to be a trate with some of the pro-abortion on demand. it's absolutely shameful.

volchitsa · 19-11-2017 08:49PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Quote were such a claim was made, please.

Well, what sorts of reasons for abortions were you referring to when you suggested that women might want to abort a week before due date?

It can't have been health issues, because pregnancies are regularly ended a week or more before due date and there's no issue with that.

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 08:49PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The fact that the baby girl died in no way negates the point of including the pic, which was of course to rebut the notion that fetuses shouldn't be spoken about as if they were 'rosy cheeked babies'.

When it has been relevant though, I have had no problem pointing out that Adelaide died:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.... the following baby girl born at 24-weeks, which then unfortunately died...

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 08:49PM

....... wrote: »

Not for much longer. I trust you'll be grand about it though. Same way you're grand about the 13th Amendment.

If ever the expression "don't count your chickens before they hatch" were more appropriate...

Even if the 8th amendment were repealed, it could take decades before any new legislation is introduced. It took two decades for the legislation to be introduced in the form of the POLDPA after the 13th amendment passed.

....... · 19-11-2017 08:51PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 19-11-2017 08:53PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 19-11-2017 08:54PM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 09:10PM

....... wrote: »

Mark this post Pete, I'll remind you of it when we have more reasonable abortion laws in Ireland.

Sure why are we paying compensation to women who had to travel for abortions if no chance is coming?

Head in the sand time you are experiencing there I think.

The State didn't pay any woman compensation because they had to travel to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction. It was determined that the State was responsible for subjecting Ms. Whelan to inhumane and degrading treatment. That judgement can apply in a number of circumstances, regardless of Irelands laws regarding abortion in which which the ECHR recognises that Ireland has 'a broad margin of appreciation' with regards to the issue of abortion.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 09:15PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no the pick was posted to prove a point, a point which was proved. it's a bit rich of you and others complaining about guilt tripping and all sorts when you are the ones actually at it.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

he has plenty of reasonable points on this issue. you haven't put forward anyone, just made people out to be something they aren't and twisted what they said to fit your agenda.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you have backed up my point, you make up things to suit your agenda and tell people what they think, making them out to be horrible people. shame on you

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 09:18PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Adelaide was not dead in that photo. Stop saying that.

Parents release photo of daughter born at 24-week-old abortion limit

A grieving mum has released this heartbreaking photograph of her premature daughter who was delivered at the 24-week abortion limit.

Born just 24 weeks into her mother’s pregnancy tiny Adelaide was too small to survive.

This treasured image of the tot reaching up as she let out a cry is the only picture her parents have of her alive.

Service Advisor Emily Caines, 25 from Yeovil, Somerset and husband security guard Alastair Caines, 29, released the photograph in a bid to open up the debate about abortion.

The current law allows babies to be terminated up to 24 weeks gestation, the same as Adelaide when she was born.

She said: "Our picture shows Adelaide was not a feotus she was a fully formed human being and to think that a baby like her could be legally terminated on grounds of a lifestyle choice is to me is horrifying. Medical grounds is a different matter.

Mrs Caines was rushed into theatre for an emergency section on December 27 2013 and her husband was at her side when their tiny daughter was lifted out by medics and let out a cry.

That’s when a doctor took the only picture of their daughter alive at the birth on the couple’s camera.

Mrs Caines said: "That cry filled us with so much hope. Her little fists were waving and I could see the doctors working on her."

But after an hour they told the couple that it was proving impossible to get a line into their daughter’s lungs to help her breathe.

They agreed the kindest ting was to let her go.

Emily said: "Our daughter may not have lived long but she was still our daughter and we love to talk about her and celebrate her life.

"Sadly in this day and age some people still find that offensive or uncomfortable. I find it particularly hurtful when people use the term late miscarriage to describe our daughter because she was born so early into my pregnancy.

"But I think this picture of her crying out shows that clearly that is not the case. I went through labour and delivery with both of my premature babies. Adelaide lived for more than an hour and will always be very much part of our lives."

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 09:27PM

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.

I've never seen anyone advocate for late term abortions so for the sake of brevity, I tend to couch things in terms of the current legal rights to abortion that women can get over the water there, which are refused here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Doesn't mean that in a seemingly disproportionate number of cases they aren't tho, eh Pete? We can all see the same posters on the same topics and the kinds of views they hold across the board, particularly when it comes to genders. It may well be a throw back to the childless in their cassocks/habits and their strange control issues around all things sex. Thankfully, as the same-sex marriage referendum showed, the political landscape in Ireland is changing and like the original dinosaurs, these too will soon be extinct.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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:

[/IMG]

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.

I have kids. One of whom was born prematurely. I know better than most and a hell of a lot better than others exactly what a very tiny baby looks like. My son is a teenager now but despite being born at 32 weeks he had numerous health issues which required painful and invasive procedures. There were other babies in the NICU born earlier who would require a life-time of support and others who didn't make it home at all.

If the majority got abortions at 24 weeks or later, I could see the point you were making - and I'd even agree with you. But they don't. The stats were posted earlier in the thread but IIRC only 1 in 10 abortions are even beyond 13 weeks and those over 24 weeks were only legally allowed under very specific circumstances...so it just smacks again of an assumption women are incapable of making rational choices about their own bodies within a specified time frame.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

When suicidal women and minors are refused abortion and instead forced into psychiatric care, a dead woman forced onto life support, a rape victim forced to beg friends or family for travel funds, a cancer sufferer refused appropriate treatment - than that's exactly what women are being seen as.

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-11-2017 09:29PM

....... wrote: »

Gwan outta that, prolifers don't care about born children.

They only care about forcing women to birth them.

Sure women are like bold children in the sweet shop according to you?

I'm glad you know all prolifers and indeed know me...we've never met....just like another poster elsewhere said prolifers had no interest in contraception and sex education.
Strawman tactics when there is no logic in your argument.

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 09:36PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ending the life of prenatal human babies is emotive sure.... but you're one to talk posting this kind of sanctimonious nonsense:

....... wrote: »

...prolifers don't care about born children.

They only care about forcing women to birth them.

How so? Only recently I called for more financial resources to be made available to pregnant women who are struggling. A school blowing up wouldn't make me happy. I mean, what are you basing this nonsense on exactly. Don't care about born children in what way?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure I want there to more reasonable abortion laws in Ireland.

Pay closer attention to my posts and you might see that.

That women in Ireland have travel to the UK for medically necessary abortions, in the cases of ffa, is a disgrace.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 09:46PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Doesn't mean that in a seemingly disproportionate number of cases they aren't tho, eh Pete? We can all see the same posters on the same topics and the kinds of views they hold across the board, particularly when it comes to genders. It may well be a throw back to the childless in their cassocks/habits and their strange control issues around all things sex. Thankfully, as the same-sex marriage referendum showed, the political landscape in Ireland is changing and like the original dinosaurs, these too will soon be extinct.

more things that may apply to a few people, being thrown on to all of us who disagree with abortion on demand. i voted for same sex marriage believe it or not, not that it's actually relevant.
but that's the thing with some, it's much easier to make people out to be the same and to be monsters who hate women because they disagree with abortion on demand.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

When suicidal women and minors are refused abortion and instead forced into psychiatric care, a dead woman forced onto life support, a rape victim forced to beg friends or family for travel funds, a cancer sufferer refused appropriate treatment - than that's exactly what women are being seen as.

it's not what women are being seen as. the doctors can only work within the law.

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 09:57PM

end of the road wrote: »

more things that may apply to a few people, being thrown on to all of us who disagree with abortion on demand. i voted for same sex marriage believe it or not, not that it's actually relevant.
but that's the thing with some, it's much easier to make people out to be the same and to be monsters who hate women because they disagree with abortion on demand.

As opposed to monsters that murder babies because they don't agree with you?
Hey black pot, my name's kettle...

end of the road wrote: »

it's not what women are being seen as. the doctors can only work within the law.

Exactly. It's what women are seen as within the current legal framework. The law can only be changed - whether to allow abortion for rape, incest and FFA or to allow abortion on request to specified date of gestation - by repealing the 8th.

Absolutely no changes are possible with the 8th in situ and while there are understandable disagreements about how much things should change, there are precious few people happy with the status quo.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 10:07PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Absolutely no changes are possible with the 8th in situ and while there are understandable disagreements about how much things should change, there are precious few people happy with the status quo.

A referendum to rescind the right to life of the unborn would render the 8th amendment irrelevant, but then that could be challenged as repugnant to the Constitution.

The argument could still be made for a referendum on that basis though, which would bring Irelands Constitution more in line with most other countries in Europe, rather than simply repealing the 8th amendment which would still leave the right to life of the unborn in place and would still result in future challenges to it's application in many circumstances.

end of the road · 19-11-2017 10:10PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Exactly. It's what women are seen as within the current legal framework. The law can only be changed - whether to allow abortion for rape, incest and FFA or to allow abortion on request to specified date of gestation - by repealing the 8th.

Absolutely no changes are possible with the 8th in situ and while there are understandable disagreements about how much things should change, there are precious few people happy with the status quo.

it's not what women are being seen as, either in the law, or elsewhere.

GritBiscuit · 19-11-2017 10:44PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A referendum to rescind the right to life of the unborn would render the 8th amendment irrelevant, but then that could be challenged as repugnant to the Constitution.

The argument could still be made for a referendum on that basis though, which would bring Irelands Constitution more in line with most other countries in Europe, rather than simply repealing the 8th amendment which would still leave the right to life of the unborn in place and would still result in future challenges to it's application in many circumstances.

I don't see how it would be possible to supersede the Constitution with merely a plebiscite on an issue. That would mean side-stepping the fact the Constitution hasn't actually fundamentally changed yet still permitting all the legislative changes that would have to follow. Even if the Dáil could agree on a bill, it would undoubtedly be thrown up by the President at signing and struck down as unconstitutional precisely because the Constitution hadn't changed. If there was no Article 26 challenge the courts still cannot rule in favour of abortion in any circumstances while the Constitution still states that the life of the unborn is equal - the Constitution takes precedence over legislation and case law.

The fact Ireland's Constitution would still be in contravention of her obligations with regard to the Committee on Human Rights is hardly going to be carpet swept either. While public popularity decides governments, it can't make laws...which in turn won't make them any less "cruel, inhuman and degrading"...

mrkiscool2 · 19-11-2017 10:50PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It really is though, in relation to human development at least (as opposed to the development of any other organism you'd care to strawman the discussion with) -

embryo [em´bre-o]

a new organism in the earliest stage of development. In humans this is defined as the developing organism from the fourth day after fertilization to the end of the eighth week. After that the unborn baby is usually referred to as the fetus. adj., adj em´bryonal, embryon´ic.

Source: The Free Medical Dictionary

No, because that would be a further display of a rather poor grasp of animal and plant biology. You're responsible for that stunning display of the failure of our education system, not the poster you quoted.

OMFG. I literally facepalmed so hard with this. Firstly, no an embryo is not human life. It has no brain activity, no respiratory system. It cannot carry out the functions needed to be classified as life. Sorry, if you can't understand that absolutely fundamental definition of life than you really shouldn't be arguing where life begins. An embryo has the potential to be human life. That is factually true. No self-respecting scientist who studied developmental biology would call an embryo human life. None.

Secondly, I obviously know a banana is not human life, nor should it be considered that. I'm making a point of the fact they are correlating the genetic code that humans have with life. We share a lot of our genetic code with other species so that, in and of itself, is not a definition for what human life is. It was a loaded question, hence I had fun with it.

So what is a human embryo then?...maybe it's really a banana the woman will give birth to!
What utter rubbish but it points to the real truth about abortion.
If we say what we're killing isn't a baby then it's ok.
If we say its a baby then we have problems both morally and legally.

No, I was showing how silly your argumentation is. A baby is a human from birth (key word, birth) to the end of it's first year. Then it's a toddler until 3 years old, then a child. Language is important. In order for a baby to be a baby, it has to be born. So no, an embryo or a fetus is not a baby. And a fetus cannot be considered alive until at least 17 weeks when it develops the ability to transfer oxygen from it's lungs to it's blood. Without that, life does not exist. Again, the potential for life exists, not life.

captbarnacles · 19-11-2017 10:52PM

I am one of the insane according to Pete.

I fully believe in whole bodily integrity and would not force any woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want for any reason.

But do I approve of late term abortions? no....they make me feel sick. Pre 16 weeks I would be utterly indifferent. If someone made a decision to abort a healthy baby, that could be delivered immediately, for social reasons I doubt i would associate with that person.

Still won't legally force someone to give birth though.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 11:09PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I don't see how it would be possible to supersede the Constitution with merely a plebiscite on an issue. That would mean side-stepping the fact the Constitution hasn't actually fundamentally changed yet still permitting all the legislative changes that would have to follow. Even if the Dáil could agree on a bill, it would undoubtedly be thrown up by the President at signing and struck down as unconstitutional precisely because the Constitution hadn't changed. If there was no Article 26 challenge the courts still cannot rule in favour of abortion in any circumstances while the Constitution still states that the life of the unborn is equal - the Constitution takes precedence over legislation and case law.

How is a decision that would render a fundamental right in the existing constitution void, not a fundamental change to the constitution?

If it is decided by a referendum that the unborn does not have a right to life (which is the case in most other European countries where they have more relaxed legislation regarding abortion), then how is the 8th amendment still applicable when the State no longer has an obligation to vindicate and protect the right to life of the unborn as equal to that of the pregnant woman? This is the wording of it like -

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Bold emphasis my own, because it reads very similar the same as this -

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Which is a load of codswallop in reality as the State has done nothing I can think of anyway that goes anywhere near endeavouring to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

The fact Ireland's Constitution would still be in contravention of her obligations with regard to the Committee on Human Rights is hardly going to be carpet swept either. While public popularity decides governments, it can't make laws...which in turn won't make them any less "cruel, inhuman and degrading"...

Could you simplify what you mean here for me any small bit? I'm having trouble understanding it unfortunately.

One eyed Jack · 19-11-2017 11:16PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

OMFG. I literally facepalmed so hard with this. Firstly, no an embryo is not human life. It has no brain activity, no respiratory system. It cannot carry out the functions needed to be classified as life. Sorry, if you can't understand that absolutely fundamental definition of life than you really shouldn't be arguing where life begins. An embryo has the potential to be human life. That is factually true. No self-respecting scientist who studied developmental biology would call an embryo human life. None.

That makes two of us mate after I read what followed that sentence... :pac:

mrkiscool2 · 19-11-2017 11:22PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That makes two of us mate after I read what followed that sentence... :pac:

Ah, not arguing the point I see! Let's just all make assertions and not stick to scientific fact, that's a great way to go sure!

Outlaw Pete · 19-11-2017 11:58PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

If someone made a decision to abort a healthy baby, that could be delivered immediately, for social reasons I doubt i would associate with that person.

Do you feel she there should be any legal ramifications for such a woman?

Or is social ostracization from friends enough punishment in your eyes.

captbarnacles · 20-11-2017 12:06AM

No, as I said I won't force her to give birth under threat of legal punishment. I can't speak of what anyone else would think of such a woman, only for myself.

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

Comments