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

Zubeneschamali · 22-11-2017 06:11PM

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn with ds have a right to live.

Which is why we must not just repeal the 8th, but replace it with an amendment explicitly stating that the Oireachteas is empowered to legislate in this area, or a future court may rule laws in this field unconstitutional because deleting article the wording of the 8th does not extinguish established rights.

....... · 22-11-2017 06:11PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 22-11-2017 06:11PM

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is been ridden roughshot over. i'm not forcing anything on anyone. the state has a duty to protect as much as is practical, the right to the life of the unborn to insure as much as is practical, that the right to life is upheld. i agree with that stance and support it.

And so you support sick women being denied medication until their illness is terminal. And so you support women who cannot travel being forced to have children they can't support, whether that be financially, physically, or emotionally. And so you support women whose children are dead or dying in utero being forced to bring them to term or travel abroad and smuggle their bodies back for burial. And so you support handicapped children living in care their entire lives.

By supporting the 8th you support all these things.

end of the road · 22-11-2017 06:14PM

kylith wrote: »

And so you support sick women being denied medication until their illness is terminal. And so you support women who cannot travel being forced to have children they can't support, whether that be financially, physically, or emotionally. And so you support women whose children are dead or dying in utero being forced to bring them to term or travel abroad and smuggle their bodies back for burial. And so you support handicapped children living in care their entire lives.

By supporting the 8th you support all these things.

not true, again twisting things to fit your agenda.

....... · 22-11-2017 06:15PM

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet · 22-11-2017 06:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

not true, again twisting things to fit your agenda.

it is true, you can't support something like the 8th amendment and then wash your hands of the consequences of it

kylith · 22-11-2017 06:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

not true, again twisting things to fit your agenda.

No, I'm not.

Women are denied medical treatment that may harm the foetus, because of the foetus having an equal right to life. The only exception is when there is an immediate risk to her life. Not health, life.

Women who are unable to travel cannot have an abortion. Even if they cannot afford to support a child. Even if they suffer mental illness and know they cannot cope with a child. Even if they know that they are physically unable to care for a child.

Women who find out that their foetus is not compatible with life who cannot travel for an abortion must carry to term while there is a foetal heartbeat. Women who can travel have to either leave the foetus in the UK, pay for it to be cremated and posted back, or smuggle the remains back in their luggage.

Women who find out that their child will be profoundly handicapped and who cannot travel for an abortion and who cannot care for that profoundly handicapped child at home have no option but to put that child in care for the duration of its life.

These are true things, EotR. These are things that Irish women and their partners face every day. This is not an agenda. This is the 8th amendment.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-11-2017 07:01PM

end of the road wrote: »

you were comparing the different things. that is a fact. there is a huge difference between your post comparing bigots and cats, and your post comparing abortion to gum.

You really should consider letting people tell you what their point is/was rather than presuming to tell them what it was. AGAIN there is a huge difference between comparing X and Y and comparing the NEED for X and Y.

The point..... the one you are dodging by pretending with such conviction I did something I did not....... is that there are plenty of things in our society that we do not "need" there. Yet we have them anyway.

end of the road wrote: »

Pick ONE. Show me ONE word I used that you think I misused.

I notice how you ignored this challenge. No surprise there either. Couldnt find one cud ya.

end of the road wrote: »

i gave it a plenty.

Nope. Nowhere. But feel free to do it again, or do you want to go around in this circle for a few weeks of me asking, and you pretending you gave it already?

end of the road wrote: »

the money will have to come from elsewhere, unless we are increasing taxes. there is no evidence abortion on demand will cut the wellfare bill.

Still not answering the question then are you. In fact I am not seeing you answer ANY question I ask. You either pretend you already have, when you have not, or you ignore the question entirely.

I ask again, what do you think the relative costs of each would be, how do you know one is higher than the other? You are simply assuming the numbers will go the way your agenda needs them to, without a SINGLE piece of evidence or workings to show for it.

Start with how much you think abortions cost, at each stage of the gestation period. Then move on to how much you think supporting the mother as a single parent would cost and for how long.

When you show you even have the basic figures, we can go on to discuss the relationship between them.

MY prediction? You will ignore that question/challange too and not answer it at alll, or barely at all. Let us wait and see how right I am......

FishOnABike · 23-11-2017 10:55AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not making your point for you at all. Your argument with respect to our morals and ethics regarding human life is predicated upon sentience is simply untrue. Our morality and ethics regarding human life is solely based upon our recognition of the one single trait of being human.

But it is not. Brain death would be universally accepted as the point at which there is no controvosy about removing a person from artificial life support in a hospital. What is brain death but the absence of sentience?

The person still has a human physical form, functioning organs (possibly with the assistance of artificial respiration, artificial feeding - either through a drip or tube, pacemaker or defibulator etc...), but if brain function stops life support is removed.

Artificial life support can also be removed where there is no prospect of life independent of those artificial supports.

It should be clear our morality and ethics are based on more complex reasons than merely possessing human genetic material or form and is not solely based upon our recognition of the one single trait of being human.

Edit: reading through the posts I see Virgil has made this same point several pages back. Still some catching up to do on my reading.

GreeBo · 23-11-2017 11:21AM

end of the road wrote: »

no . it has no place in a country that values life as much as ireland does..

You dont value life, you value the unborn. You clearly couldnt give a flying continental about anything outside the womb.

gctest50 · 23-11-2017 11:34AM

GreeBo wrote: »

You dont value life, you value the unborn. You clearly couldnt give a flying continental about anything outside the womb.

I doubt it's anything as noble as that

- values that little bit of power and control

captbarnacles · 23-11-2017 11:39AM

From all the posts by posters who support the 8th amendment what is distinctly missing? any concern whatsoever for the woman who is pregnant.

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 11:39AM

FishOnABike wrote: »

But it is not. Brain death would be universally accepted as the point at which there is no controvosy about removing a person from artificial life support in a hospital. What is brain death but the absence of sentience?

The person still has a human physical form, functioning organs (possibly with the assistance of artificial respiration, artificial feeding - either through a drip or tube, pacemaker or defibulator etc...), but if brain function stops life support is removed.

Artificial life support can also be removed where there is no prospect of life independent of those artificial supports.

It should be clear our morality and ethics are based on more complex reasons than merely possessing human genetic material or form and is not solely based upon our recognition of the one single trait of being human.

Edit: reading through the posts I see Virgil has made this same point several pages back. Still some catching up to do on my reading.

Although I am ultimately pro-choice I would challenge this premise on logical grounds. Surely, a large part of the reason for removing life support in the case of brain death is the absence of any prospect of recovery. In the case of the unborn baby, continued support (in the form of the mother) will most likely lead to eventual independent living.

MrPudding · 23-11-2017 11:45AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your ignorance of basic mathematics is shocking. the cost of an abortion prior to 16 weeks is the cost of a pill. I'm not sure how exactly much that pill costs but it is in the 10's of euros not 100's. post 16 weeks it is a day procedure or possibly an overnight. the cost to the state of not having that abortion is the full cost of pre-natal and post-natal care for that child. plus the cost of childrens allowance for the following 18 years. plus the cost of educating that child. somehow you think these costs do not outweigh the costs of a pill or a day procedure.

And that assumes the child will remain with the mother and not be taken into care and will not have any special needs that require additional support.

MrP

ohnonotgmail · 23-11-2017 11:50AM

Mousewar wrote: »

Although I am ultimately pro-choice I would challenge this premise on logical grounds. Surely, a large part of the reason for removing life support in the case of brain death is the absence of any prospect of recovery. In the case of the unborn baby, continued support (in the form of the mother) will most likely lead to eventual independent living.

as somebody who was in that situation only a few weeks ago the overriding reason was that the person we knew was no longer there. what made them "them" was gone.

Triceratops Ballet · 23-11-2017 11:51AM

Aviation wrote: »

There needs to be a cut off at which point abortion is illegal, the unborn deserves consideration and at a certain point legal protection.

currently there is a cut off point, which is implantation

GreeBo · 23-11-2017 11:54AM

Mousewar wrote: »

Although I am ultimately pro-choice I would challenge this premise on logical grounds. Surely, a large part of the reason for removing life support in the case of brain death is the absence of any prospect of recovery. In the case of the unborn baby, continued support (in the form of the mother) will most likely lead to eventual independent living.

Unless of course the child is born with severe Downs for example and needs care for the rest of its likely short life?

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 11:56AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as somebody who was in that situation only a few weeks ago the overriding reason was that the person we knew was no longer there. what made them "them" was gone.

My sympathies.
But, as I said, the prospect of 'them' coming back was gone and so a decision (no doubt the right one) was made on that basis. However, in the case of the unborn baby, whatever 'they' is in the case of the foetus (whether it exists or not yet) is almost certainly going to emerge.
It's just not a great comparison is my point.

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 11:58AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless of course the child is born with severe Downs for example and needs care for the rest of its likely short life?

Which is why I said 'most likely'.
Not sure why you have included 'likely' though in this case. Down Syndrome life expectancy is only a little shorter than a person without a genetic abnormality.

kylith · 23-11-2017 11:59AM

Mousewar wrote: »

Which is why I said 'most likely'.
Not sure why you have included 'likely' though in this case. Down Syndrome life expectancy is only a little shorter than a person without a genetic abnormality.

Due to medical advances, including multiple surgeries. Not too long ago life expectancy for people with DS was in the teens.

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 12:01PM

kylith wrote: »

Due to medical advances, including multiple surgeries. Not too long ago life expectancy for people with DS was in the teens.

Yes, I'm well aware. Are you correcting me on something?

GreeBo · 23-11-2017 12:04PM

Mousewar wrote: »

Which is why I said 'most likely'.
Not sure why you have included 'likely' though in this case. Down Syndrome life expectancy is only a little shorter than a person without a genetic abnormality.

So we are agreed their life is shorter then?

I still disagree on the independent living. What are the percentages of Downs patients living fully independent "normal" lives?

kylith · 23-11-2017 12:06PM

Mousewar wrote: »

Yes, I'm well aware. Are you correcting me on something?

No, not correcting. Just musing on whether it's fair to subject someone who can't understand what's happening to them to multiple surgeries to extend their lives. Obviously some people with DS are high functioning enough to understand, but many aren't.

ohnonotgmail · 23-11-2017 12:07PM

Mousewar wrote: »

My sympathies.
But, as I said, the prospect of 'them' coming back was gone and so a decision (no doubt the right one) was made on that basis. However, in the case of the unborn baby, whatever 'they' is in the case of the foetus (whether it exists or not yet) is almost certainly going to emerge.
It's just not a great comparison is my point.

in the case of an unborn foetus whatever "they" does not exist.

gctest50 · 23-11-2017 12:07PM

kylith wrote: »

Due to medical advances, including multiple surgeries. Not too long ago life expectancy for people with DS was in the teens.

And when the DS person gets a bit older, it's off to the home with them and they get visited once a month

Triceratops Ballet · 23-11-2017 12:12PM

Aviation wrote: »

There needs to be a cut off it the 8th is repealed and new legislation introduced.

well if the 8th is repealed, abortion still wont be legal, it's actually the legislation that will be required to make it legal, I'm sure term limits will be included in the discussion about what that legislation will say. I think it's highly unlikely that the legislation would be introduced with no limitations

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 12:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in the case of an unborn foetus whatever "they" does not exist.

Do you mean something specific by 'unborn foetus'? If you simply mean a foetus that may well be true up to a certain gestational point but you're surely not suggesting that statement applies all the way up to 42 weeks?

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 12:35PM

GreeBo wrote: »

So we are agreed their life is shorter then?

I still disagree on the independent living. What are the percentages of Downs patients living fully independent "normal" lives?

Independent in this case refers to being independent of direct life support offered by machines in the case of adults suffering brain death (the case to which i was replying) and by the mother's placenta in the case of the unborn.

ohnonotgmail · 23-11-2017 12:46PM

Mousewar wrote: »

Do you mean something specific by 'unborn foetus'? If you simply mean a foetus that may well be true up to a certain gestational point but you're surely not suggesting that statement applies all the way up to 42 weeks?

of course i dont. abortions dont take place at 42 weeks. very few take place past 24 weeks and then only for medical reasons.

Mousewar · 23-11-2017 12:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

of course i dont. abortions dont take place at 42 weeks. very few take place past 24 weeks and then only for medical reasons.

Ok, your post seemed to strongly suggest otherwise.

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

Comments