AnGaelach wrote: » It does not really matter who supported it or opposed it, the point of contention was that only religious "mentally impaired slaves" are pro-life, which is an utterly preposterous position to hold.
MayoSalmon wrote: » The right for a father not to have to maintain the child if he is in favour of abortion and woman decides to keep it. He has no rights to stop the abortion in the event that it is repealed therefore the father should have rights to refrain from his current legal obligation to provide for the child.
LirW wrote: » Why would you take that I don't? By the way, the earliest a baby can survive outside of the womb is 24 weeks and even then the chances it might not make it are quite high. There's a reason why 24 is a magic line for women, especially with troublesome pregnancies. I do not think that I used sensitive terminology. I told about injections about the fetus' abdominal area, the fetus will die. Labour will be induced and the dead baby is born. I had a look in my birth pass from my first that was issued back home, the baby is referred to as fetus right after birth. Medical term.
uptherebels wrote: Just out of interest what rights are you looking for regarding fathers and abortion? and how do you think they would be enforceable?
LirW wrote: » Because the 8th is not only tied to the abortion issue but it heavily impacts the Irish maternity care. Early pregnancy care is pretty much non-existent in the public sector and there is a problem that women are not asked for consent for tests or procedures. They also often don't have a say during labour to what happens to them because a sentence many women hear is "it's dangerous for the baby".
LirW wrote: » Abortions in Ireland are happening, and they won't go away. They are around and there is a blackmarket for medication that you should take under medical supervision. It's about whether or not giving women a safe surrounding to have a termination or not, not only the women that have the money to travel to England.
splinter65 wrote: » LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.
Thirdfox wrote: » Apologies - I thought this post deserved an acknowledgment and response - it was lost in the legal sniping over definitions of injunctions and X case facts last night. First - I thank you for taking the time to post out a very thoughtful response to my genuinely held concerns. I thought it best to do you the courtesy of the same. I do understand that many pregnancies suffer a miscarriage in the first trimester - in fact traditionally I heard that in my local culture a pregnancy isn't announced until the 2nd trimester for this very reason. But I would see a distinction between an unplanned miscarriage and an active decision to abort - one is a tragic natural occurrence that the parents may mourn (or like you say, sometimes not even be aware of) and the other is a very conscious decision to end the pregnancy (and state sanctioned). And I'm sure you realise everyone's position is nuanced - I would find FFA cases to fall into the euthanasia category and actually something I would support - as the unfortunate bundle of cells have no hope of ever developing into a conscious human being. It may seem strange or bizarre to you, but I would value a rapist's foetus above a FFA foetus in terms of what/who can be aborted - for the reasons explained in my previous posts about looking at the effect an abortion would have on the unborn child and where the punishment of the crime lay (on the rapist of course). I am aware that across the wide spectrum of pro-choice/pro-life people different nuanced positions are taken - this is the one I find least hypocritical (to me personally). And yes - of course the number of 12/24 isn't picked out of thin air - medical professionals must have had their professional input into the discussion and as you say, made the best possible compromise in their eyes. It was at the last discussion I had on the humanities forum that I discovered the interesting historical fact that Christian history (I come from a pretty atheist state) believed that the "soul" entered the baby at the "quickening" - first kick at around 24 weeks. But for me, and trying to make you see it how I see it - the closest comparative feeling it would be akin to the death penalty - while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens (beside the whole non-deterrence value and other arguments against the death penalty). Miscarriage of justice happens and for life/death situations it goes beyond breathlyser tests, arbitrary drinking age limits etc. So hopefully you can see - though perhaps not agree with the lenses I view abortion through. We have come a long way from State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtala (case from the 1966) where the judge openly stated "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring" - have a read if you want to see the SC's mentality towards (unmarried) men back in the 60s - mother in mental institution wanted to put child up for adoption, unmarried father - who changed his religion for the child - wanted to raise child - but SC sides with mother and states unmarried fathers have no rights to their child... It really is a sh!tty situation where the mother and father disagree on whether a child is wanted or not - I know some people suggest going the other way - allowing "legal abortions" for fathers who don't want to have anything to do with their unwanted child once born but I wouldn't be in favour of such given my stance on abortion in the first place. Again, while realising that yes - pregnancy isn't a piece of cake and women will certainly be potentially under an inordinate amount of stress it is for me, another balance of rights issue - the balance between up to 24 weeks of potentially serious stress vs the life of the child. That's also why I made reference to medical advances - I would imagine that as further advances in the medical field come along that 24 viability week figure should come down accordingly - until one day perhaps when having a child is almost something that is stork-like and the abortion discussion is moot - no child will be unwanted and all children are genetically designed to be perfect from start to finish etc. So again, I can understand your concern that women will be merely relegated to "baby brood mares" or something like that, I would ask, is there any duration you would accept or take? What if a foetus can be extracted at 12 weeks and be viable? Would you accept asking women to tolerate 12 weeks of pregnancy, 8 weeks, 2 weeks? I'm cognisant that some may view this as airy-fairy what-ifs - but the purpose is to see if people on the pro-choice side do have an idea of how much inconvenience/stresses a woman could be asked to endure for a pregnancy that is unwanted by her but wanted by the natural father. It is of course open to people to say that "well it's 24 weeks right now and I don't agree with 24, if it comes down in the future I'll cross that bridge when I get there". If the answer is - no I won't tolerate asking the woman to keep an unwanted foetus for any weeks of pregnancy then I'm afraid we will probably have an unbridgeable divide in outlook. Yes - and I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance and aren't merely taking a position out of spite for women or with malicious intent. You see it in some of the posts here, this being AH it is to be expected, where people are wondering out loud why do these Church educated morons want to exercise control over a women's body etc.? I recall reading a bumper sticker in the US - "Let's keep abortion safe, available and minimised" - if it does come in of course that's how I would want it - though I'll continue to champion for paternal rights (married or unmarried) with regards to the decision to abort.
splinter65 wrote: » Yes, but you quoted my response to LirW first, without reading LirW’s post.
LirW wrote: » Sorry, had to shorten your post there because of wall of text reasons. See I fully get where you're coming from. I'm assuming that the 12 weeks time limit has to do with the proven medical facts. The first trimester of a pregnancy is the time where most things can go wrong. Up to 12 weeks almost half of all conceived pregnancies abort naturally, most of them so early that the woman never knows she was actually expecting. While every embryo develops differently there are major milestones met around 13-14 weeks. To put it in a stupid term, it's the most "humane" time to end a pregnancy. Also taking into account that not every woman finds out in week 5 or 6 that she's pregnant but a good bit later. It would be very unusual to not have found out by 12 weeks. The reason why 24 weeks are in place for severe cases of FFA is that certain tests can only be carried out between 13 and 24 weeks. In week 13 is the best time to have a nuchal translucency and if that's abnormal you can go from there. The most accurate test can only be carried out at around 20 weeks which gives you a very good indication of what's most likely wrong with the baby. There are FFAs where the child wouldn't survive the birth or the first few hours after it, so this is the last time for parents to decide if they want to go ahead anyway or not. Again 24 weeks is the very earliest that a baby can be kept alive outside the womb. The chances that they'll make it are a lot lower than for example a preemie that's born at 30 weeks, in that case every day counts. I believe that an ethical component is in fact the reason why these limits are set. They are not fully random but this is the best compromise from an ethical and medical point of view. Regarding paternal rights, this is something where I wanna come back to another point you mentioned: Going ahead with a pregnancy that's unwanted. See, a pregnancy takes a toll on every woman. Some are super happy and just seem to fly through it but others don't. It can have a horrible impact on your mental health even if your child is planned or not. So if you're not in the perfect circumstances, the chances that this will take a toll is a lot higher. While the infertility of one couple is incredibly tragic, it doesn't mean that another woman has to go ahead with a pregnancy that she doesn't want or maybe even resents. This can be incredibly distressing and traumatic up to a point where it can drive a woman suicidal. So in order to protect the life of an unborn child we risk the mental and maybe physical health of an adult woman? This can be seen as punishment because in fact that means that the life of a bundle of cells has more value than the health and sanity of a living and breathing human-being that's a functioning part of society (ideally). And this is where paternal rights come in and I agree that this is an extremely tricky one. De facto the father does not have a right or say what's going to happen. Now we need to take into account that the majority of men wouldn't want to raise a child on their own because the mother already decided she won't do it. But these men are there, I know a case of it personally. And these men depend on the grace of the woman. This is a very sh1tty scenario for all. The father will lose out on his own child. But again the toll the woman takes can be incredibly high. No matter what, the woman would end up as some kind of baby machine against her will. And because she's the one that is pregnant and takes all the physical and mental side effects, that can vary widely, she's the one who has to decide what's going to happen. There is unfortunately no compromise on that one, as painful as it might be for a father that would be willing to raise a child on his own. But there are no winners here because that's a sour scenario for everyone involved. I personally still see it as wrong that a woman should be forced carrying a child against her will. I think the human rights agree with me on that point. This is why it is so difficult to imply the paternal rights for a child that is not born. The 8th at the moment overrules this by saying "Yeah well, your life as a grown woman is as important as the one of a cell blob and in in a scenario of doubt, we side with that cell blob, no matter what's up with you." This enables so many problems. This also enables substandard pregnancy care and the overruling of consent during the pregnancy and birth. And no matter what, I think, in case of doubt, the adult woman or a living child or your auntie nell is more important than an embryo.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I love that you included this and I wish many more people would. Many people not only miss that common ground, but some even actively ignore it and hide it. Usually behind trolling emotive terms like "pro murder" and "pro abortion" and similar rhetoric. Abortion is a divisive topic already, we do not need to make it more so by missing the fact that there is a massive lump of common ground between most people on most sides. Pretty much all of us would ideally like to live in a society where no abortion happens. We just differ on our paths towards that ideal.
splinter65 wrote: » I’m not outraged I’m just fascinated. If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing. It’s ridiculous . A baby is a baby at 20+ weeks .........
Definition of fetus : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare embryo 1bhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
uptherebels wrote: » but you quoted me?
LirW wrote: » Because it's the medical term? I also don't refer to a vasectomy as willy snip. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about something like this now because we all get the point and I'm not wasting my time for some artificial outrage that I used the word fetus instead of baby.
uptherebels wrote: » where did i mention 20+ weeks gestation? In your eagerness to be offended you aren't reading peoples posts properly.
splinter65 wrote: » Why did the poster not say “kills the baby”? If it’s the right thing to do then why shrink away from normal terminology? If you’ve made a considered desicion that the in utero killing of a disabled baby is justified and the desicion of the mother only, then why the need to use the word fetus?
splinter65 wrote: » A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!?
A 20+ weeks gestation fetus is not a fetus?!?11!!!!???
splinter65 wrote: » A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they said that because it's a fetus. The sheer hypocrisy of a pro-lifer giving out about manipulation of language is laughable, when it's you lot who insist on calling a lump of cells a baby.
LirW wrote: » It kills the baby, yes. Then labour is induced. Outcome is the same, isn't it? No ripping apart in Sam Raimi splatter manner. Maybe it's good to take into account that almost all of these abortions take place because the baby would be severely disabled and/or the chances are high that they wouldn't survive birth. Not every woman has the strength to carry a pregnancy to term only to see the baby die during labour and I can't blame them a bit.
tigger123 wrote: » Pretty amazing that both the Citizens Assembly and now the Oireachtas Committee having heard balanced, informed debate on the matter are opting to repeal the 8th. The truth has a liberal bias.
Hoboo wrote: » Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic. Taken from womenonweb.org. 'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'. Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?
splinter65 wrote: » Pro choice is all about semantics . “Lets the fetus die” As opposed to “kills the baby”. Careful use of words to conceal the reality.
uptherebels wrote: » kinda like when they refer to a bunch of cells as a baby......oh wait:rolleyes:
LirW wrote: » I know how it's done where I come from: If you decide to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks because of a FFA for example, there will be an injection into the fetus abdominal area that lets the fetus die pretty much instantly. Once there's no heartbeat anymore, the woman gets medication that initiates labour and she gives birth to the dead fetus.
