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
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: » Yes, but you quoted my response to LirW first, without reading LirW’s post.
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: » 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.
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.
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: » 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.
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.
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.
Hoboo wrote: » Life is a series of actions which run a risk of the well being of me and others, sure, but I don't drive a car safe in the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, it won't be me that gets killed, it will definitely be someone else. IF abortion was not an option, but Euthanasia was, would you choose Euthanasia as an option to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? I very much doubt it.
nice_guy80 wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html throwing the toys out of the pram
end of the road wrote: » it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever. it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.
end of the road wrote: » a 12 week unborn will be sentient.
end of the road wrote: » we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.
AnGaelach wrote: » The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another.
splinter65 wrote: » In order to be “pro choice” you have to convince yourself that an unborn baby is not the young of a human being.
splinter65 wrote: » These are not people who are about to face up to the mechanics of an abortion.
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.
splinter65 wrote: » A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?
splinter65 wrote: » If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.
Thirdfox wrote: » 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
Thirdfox wrote: » 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
Kiwi in IE wrote: » A Zygote will eventually become sentient too if not miscarried or aborted. Is a zygote also of equal value to a born, sentient woman who is carrying it? Can you truthfully say that you think a fused sperm and egg is of the same value as an actual person?
First person to be prosecuted for assisting suicide in Ireland describes experience on Late Late Show A carer who became the first person in Ireland prosecuted for assisting suicide has talked about her relationship with her deceased friend and the times she faced questioning from gardaí. Tallaght woman Gail O’Rorke was charged over the booking of flights to Switzerland between March 10 and April 20, 2011 for MS sufferer Bernadette Forde, 51, to travel to the Dignitas clinic. Ms Forde, a former employee with Guinness in Dublin, died at her home in Morehampton Mews, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 on June 6, 2011.http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/first-person-to-be-prosecuted-for-assisting-suicide-in-ireland-describes-experience-on-late-late-show-775494.html
tigger123 wrote: » I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Well when driving a car it could by you killed, someone else, or both. But the point is that we take risks in pretty much everything we do every day. Eating could choke you, falling down stairs could kill or maim or cripple you, socializing could infect you. And on and on and on. Sex is only one of the many things that could have negative consequences. And life is about balancing desire with risk, and making informed decisions. And when it goes wrong, it is about mediating between options on how to move forward. And abortion is, and should be, and option given it is a choice made BY a sentient agent to increase their well being, and it is a choice made ABOUT a non-sentient entity that no one on this thread has argued coherently for giving rights to.
Belfast wrote: » at what point do humans becomes sentient? what point are they no longer sentient?
Belfast wrote: » if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient. at what point do humans becomes sentient? what point are they no longer sentient?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » the Roman Catholic Church line.
Hoboo wrote: » So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma. You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here. The Council is made up of: The Antiochian Orthodox Church, The Church of Ireland, The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland, The LifeLink Network of Churches, The Lutheran Church in Ireland, The Methodist Church in Ireland, The Moravian Church (Irish District), The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland, The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, The Religious Society of Friends, The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim) The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland, The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland, The Salvation Army (Ireland Division). [p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]
