nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Crock Rock

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The jury appears to be out on fetal pain.

Here’s an article from 2016 about Utah introducing laws that anaesthetic must be given before an abortion is performed.

Anaesthetic is not required in Ireland as far as I know.

But it's not allowed after 12 weeks gestation in Ireland, it won't have formed into a child with a deveoped nervous system at that time.

If a viable child has to be killed in utero though, pain relief should be mandatory.

volchitsa

Crock Rock wrote: »

They can go abroad though. Anyway, I wasn't specifying Ireland. Do you know the answer to my question?

Would it be painful if you were squeezed through a passage so narrow that your skull was pushed out of shape by it? Yet I don't see anyone suggesting the baby needs to be anaesthetised to go through the birth process. Why is that?

Sardonicat

Crock Rock wrote: »

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The jury appears to be out on fetal pain.

Here’s an article from 2016 about Utah introducing laws that anaesthetic must be given before an abortion is performed.

Anaesthetic is not required in Ireland as far as I know.

But it's not allowed after 12 weeks gestation in Ireland, it won't have formed into a child with a deveoped nervous system at that time.

If a viable child has to be killed in utero though, pain relief should be mandatory.

Only viable?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Crock Rock wrote: »

But it's not allowed after 12 weeks gestation in Ireland, it won't have formed into a child with a deveoped nervous system at that time.

If a viable child has to be killed in utero though, pain relief should be mandatory.

Like I said, the jury is out on that. It doesn’t appear to be yet known if foetuses younger than 12 weeks experience pain. From my cursory glance at the subject.

Why not research the topic if it interests you?

Crock Rock

Sardonicat wrote: »

Only viable?

My mistkae and poor terminlogy. If a developed child who can feel pain is being killed in the womb, then pain relief should be mandatory.

At 12 weeks, there if I'm not mistaken no proper nervous system is developed.

If I'm wrong and there is a nervous system at 12 weeks then, yes, pain relief should be mandatory.

Sardonicat

Are developed feotuses destroyed in utero.?

Crock Rock

Sardonicat wrote: »

Are developed feotuses destroyed in utero.?

A developed child is often destroyed by being injected with potassium chloride in UK abortions when the mother doesn't want a disabled child. So sad

gctest50

Crock Rock wrote: »

...,.....

The chemical used to kill the child is potassium chloride.

Potassium chloride is used to kill men and women on death row in America. ........

If you are diabetic and get DKA, you might be needing potassium chloride iv

All yer cells have little voltage-gated potassium channels so the level needs to be fairly right

about 3.6 to 5.2 (mmol/L)

.

Igotadose

Crock Rock wrote: »

A developed child is often destroyed by being injected with potassium chloride in UK abortions when the mother doesn't want a disabled child. So sad

Define "often"

nozzferrahhtoo

Crock Rock wrote: »

Does a child at a viable stage feel pain when they are being killed in the womb?

You would need to be specific about WHAT stage you mean. "A viable stage" could refer to any number of stages of pregnancy.

However before certain stages of pregnancy we have no reason to think they feel anything at all. In fact there is no reason to think there is even anyONE there to do the feeling. No sentience, no consciousness, no subjectivity, nothing.

Even up to 24 weeks there is no evidence that we should be concerned about here. Even beyond that the evidence remains dubious and non-existent for quite awhile.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/abortion-in-ireland-four-weeks-in-how-s-it-working-1.3770442

Interesting IT article about how the new law is working.
Somewhat surprisingly, ambiguity around the 12-week cut-off point seems to be the biggest issue...

eviltwin

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/abortion-in-ireland-four-weeks-in-how-s-it-working-1.3770442

Interesting IT article about how the new law is working.
Somewhat surprisingly, ambiguity around the 12-week cut-off point seems to be the biggest issue...

Not surprised. It's only natural medical professionals are going to her on the side of caution, they are the ones at risk of prosecution.

Decriminalisation needs to happen

Loafing Oaf

eviltwin wrote: »

Not surprised. It's only natural medical professionals are going to her on the side of caution, they are the ones at risk of prosecution.

Decriminalisation needs to happen

The Rotunda has had to curtail its services so that abortions will not be allowed for women at more than 11 weeks’ gestation – instead of the intended 12 weeks – because a procedure can take several days to complete, and the obstetricians fear they will fall foul of the law if the 12-week period is breached.

You'd think this would all have been nailed down before the legislation passed...

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You'd think this would all have been nailed down before the legislation passed...

It shows the folly of trying to "nail down", like a legal contract, what is a medical process that doesn't lend itself to simple administrative time limits.

And as Evil Twin suggests, the problem is that the penalty for doctors getting anything wrong, even just a date, is a criminal sanction. So who can blame them for leaving themselves as much leeway as they can, even if that means reducing the time available for women to less than the law intended.

manual_man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would need to be specific about WHAT stage you mean. "A viable stage" could refer to any number of stages of pregnancy.

However before certain stages of pregnancy we have no reason to think they feel anything at all. In fact there is no reason to think there is even anyONE there to do the feeling. No sentience, no consciousness, no subjectivity, nothing.

Even up to 24 weeks there is no evidence that we should be concerned about here. Even beyond that the evidence remains dubious and non-existent for quite awhile.

So basically you're saying YOU didn't matter (and don't matter now by extension) at different stages while you were in your mother's womb. So sad.

volchitsa

manual_man wrote: »

So basically you're saying YOU didn't matter (and don't matter now by extension) at different stages while you were in your mother's womb. So sad.

Well no, I don't think that follows.

IMO an unborn baby, even a fully developed one, is not "worth" the same as the pregnant woman: if an emergency develops during labour, and only one of the two can be saved, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that medical staff should ever sacrifice the woman to save the baby, unless that is what the woman herself has chosen.

That doesn't mean the unborn baby isn't important, but whenever there's a conflict between the two lives, it's just not as important as the woman. Again, IMO anyway.

manual_man

volchitsa wrote: »

Well no, I don't think that follows.

IMO an unborn baby, even a fully developed one, is not "worth" the same as the pregnant woman: if an emergency develops during labour, and only one of the two can be saved, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that medical staff should ever sacrifice the woman to save the baby, unless that is what the woman herself has chosen.

That doesn't mean the unborn baby isn't important, but whenever there's a conflict between the two lives, it's just not as important as the woman. Again, IMO anyway.

Look, I think we all know there are a tiny percentage of cases that arrive where it genuinely is a case of one life vs another. And I don't wish to minimise such cases. I can't imagine the horror and turmoil of a pregnant woman who wants to have her baby and is faced with such a reality. But this situation is thrust upon her by no choice of her own. And I don't know anyone who knows what to do in that situation. It truly is horrific. The difference though, is that in all other cases, those who advocate for abortion are CREATING the conflict between woman and baby. And for me this is the great evil. We should never WISH for there to be conflict between woman and baby. I find this so sad.

nozzferrahhtoo

manual_man wrote: »

So basically you're saying YOU didn't matter (and don't matter now by extension) at different stages while you were in your mother's womb. So sad.

"So what you're saying is....."

My position is that sentient agents matter. Non sentient objects do not. The fetus when most abortion occurs, which is before 16 weeks, is not at all sentient. Therefore yes, the concept of what "matters" gets quite nebulous at this point.

So it is as complete a straw man as straw men get to suggest my position is that people do not "matter now by extension". It seems "by extension" actually means "this nonsense I have appended out of literally nowhere".

Cheer up. No reason to be sad.

manual_man wrote: »

those who advocate for abortion are CREATING the conflict between woman and baby.

Firstly I do not know anyone who advocates for abortion. They advocate for abortion to be an available choice. Most of them however, myself included, would prefer to live in a world where zero abortions actually happen.

Secondly they are not creating conflict at all. The choice of abortion is for women who are pregnant who do not wish to be. That conflict is already there before advocates for choice come along. Which is why we had back street abortion and home DIY methods like coat hangers.

manual_man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"So what you're saying is....."

My position is that sentient agents matter. Non sentient objects do not. The fetus when most abortion occurs, which is before 16 weeks, is not at all sentient. Therefore yes, the concept of what "matters" gets quite nebulous at this point.

So it is as complete a straw man as straw men get to suggest my position is that people do not "matter now by extension". It seems "by extension" actually means "this nonsense I have appended out of literally nowhere".

Cheer up. No reason to be sad.

Firstly I do not know anyone who advocates for abortion. They advocate for abortion to be an available choice. Most of them however, myself included, would prefer to live in a world where zero abortions actually happen.

Secondly they are not creating conflict at all. The choice of abortion is for women who are pregnant who do not wish to be. That conflict is already there before advocates for choice come along. Which is why we had back street abortion and home DIY methods like coat hangers.

I'm not sad. I simply can't understand why people look to demean the process of life, the very same process which allowed us all to be here and living our lives. Have a great day

volchitsa

manual_man wrote: »

Look, I think we all know there are a tiny percentage of cases that arrive where it genuinely is a case of one life vs another. And I don't wish to minimise such cases. I can't imagine the horror and turmoil of a pregnant woman who wants to have her baby and is faced with such a reality. But this situation is thrust upon her by no choice of her own. And I don't know anyone who knows what to do in that situation. It truly is horrific. The difference though, is that in all other cases, those who advocate for abortion are CREATING the conflict between woman and baby. And for me this is the great evil. We should never WISH for there to be conflict between woman and baby. I find this so sad.

No they are not, it is the reality of pregnancy. In most cases the woman gets off with "minor" inconveniences like varicose veins, nausea, sometimes incontinence or worse, things like high blood pressure or diabetes and other dangerous complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

And in most cases those risks were traditionally minimised or laughed off - partly so as not to scare women off pregnancy but also because traditionally women's bodies and lives were to a large extent the property of men and so had only the importance the men concerned chose to give them.

Giving women equal rights to men means that if we also want to give the fetus equal rights, then there is a conflict of interests. It's not prochoice who create that conflict, except by insisting that women's rights exist even during pregnancy.

nozzferrahhtoo

manual_man wrote: »

I'm not sad. I simply can't understand why people look to demean the process of life, the very same process which allowed us all to be here and living our lives. Have a great day

Every day is a great day. As for being sad, you brought it up not me.

I am afraid however you will have to take your personal issues with those who demean the process of life up with those who demean the process of life. Since I do not do that, it is not my problem.

What I ACTUALLY do when I pull away the straw you are pilling on here, is acknowledge what the process of life is, how each stage is different, and what "matters" at each stage.

I also recognise the existence of the pregnant woman who morally and ethically I am compelled to be concerned for in terms of her freedom, her choices, and her well being.

And I see no reason to curtail her freedoms, choices, and well being in deference to a completely non-sentient agent. Nor it seems, for all this bluster, do you.

Sean.3516

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS.

From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that. If you do you’re anti-scientific.

Now, if you’re making the argument about what graduation of human development makes a human worth protecting, I would say the gradation doesn’t matter. It’s still a human being whether is a newly formed embryo or a fully formed foetus.

No innocent human being deserves to be killed no matter what their stage of development is.

If left to it’s own devices it will become a fully developed human (in the respect that pro choicers believe it’s worth protecting) why do you insist that it can be morally killed before hand?

Prove me wrong.

Calina

Sean.3516 wrote: »

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS.

From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that. If you do you’re anti-scientific.

Now, if you’re making the argument about what graduation of human development makes a human worth protecting, I would say the gradation doesn’t matter. It’s still a human being whether is a newly formed embryo or a fully formed foetus.

No innocent human being deserves to be killed no matter what their stage of development is.

If left to it’s own devices it will become a fully developed human (in the respect that pro choicers believe it’s worth protecting) why do you insist that it can be morally killed before hand?

Prove me wrong.

There are no guarantees. It may or may not. Not it will.

I wish men who were anti abortion were as vociferous about being anti domestic violence and anti men killing their wives and girlfriends and anti rape. But it seems once you are born they aren't so loud and vocal about the right to life.

Loafing Oaf

Sean.3516 wrote: »

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS.

From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that. If you do you’re anti-scientific.

Now, if you’re making the argument about what graduation of human development makes a human worth protecting, I would say the gradation doesn’t matter. It’s still a human being whether is a newly formed embryo or a fully formed foetus.

No innocent human being deserves to be killed no matter what their stage of development is.

If left to it’s own devices it will become a fully developed human (in the respect that pro choicers believe it’s worth protecting) why do you insist that it can be morally killed before hand?

Prove me wrong.

Impossible. All ethical judgements are ultimately matters of opinion. "No is implies an ought" and all that jazz...

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS.

From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that. If you do you’re anti-scientific.

Now, if you’re making the argument about what graduation of human development makes a human worth protecting, I would say the gradation doesn’t matter. It’s still a human being whether is a newly formed embryo or a fully formed foetus.

No innocent human being deserves to be killed no matter what their stage of development is.

If left to it’s own devices it will become a fully developed human (in the respect that pro choicers believe it’s worth protecting) why do you insist that it can be morally killed before hand?

Prove me wrong.

we already had a vote on this. Your side lost.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS.

From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that. If you do you’re anti-scientific.

Now, if you’re making the argument about what graduation of human development makes a human worth protecting, I would say the gradation doesn’t matter. It’s still a human being whether is a newly formed embryo or a fully formed foetus.

No innocent human being deserves to be killed no matter what their stage of development is.

If left to it’s own devices it will become a fully developed human (in the respect that pro choicers believe it’s worth protecting) why do you insist that it can be morally killed before hand?

Prove me wrong.

A human embryo the size of a small grape is not of equal value or worth to a living, breathing sentient woman with a family, friends and life to live.

If she chooses to place her pregnancy at equal value of her own life that’s her own prerogative but to force her would be cruel and wrong.
She IS more important than the contents of her womb unless she chooses otherwise.

And regardless, the No side lost so you’re flogging a dead horse. The majority of the public simply do not agree with you.

Sean.3516

Calina wrote: »

There are no guarantees. It may or may not. Not it will.

I wish men who were anti abortion were as vociferous about being anti domestic violence and anti men killing their wives and girlfriends and anti rape. But it seems once you are born they aren't so loud and vocal about the right to life.

When I say left to it’s own devices, I should have said if left unimpeaded in it’s development, that’s barring an accidental miscarriage, or some medical circumstance that leads it to dying.

For the record, I am vociferously against domestic violence. And I think it’s a disgrace that we don’t have a mandatory death penalty in this country for rapists and murderers. They deserve to die.

Now before you all say I’m not really pro-life for wanting rapists and murders executed. First of all the term pro life has has always referred to be people against abortion where there is no threat to life of the mother. If you’re saying I’m not pro life for wanting these criminals dead then your really changing the definition of life to anti-killing, which is not what it means.

In my above post, I said that killing (innocent humans) was wrong. To kill someone I believe that they have to be either guilty of rape or murder and given due process of law, a threat to you in which case killing yourself is self defense or during a war in which killing soldiers of an opposing nation who are not surrendering is not immoral.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we already had a vote on this. Your side lost.

So? I wasn’t disputing that we had a vote and that your side won.

I was disputing the morality of abortion.

Just because a referendum was had doesn’t mean “case closed on the issue.”

After the 1983 referendum in which your side lost by the same margin, you guys continued the conversation, in accordance with your right to do so. Why can’t we do the same?

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

A human embryo the size of a small grape is not of equal value or worth to a living, breathing sentient woman with a family, friends and life to live.

If she chooses to place her pregnancy at equal value of her own life that’s her own prerogative but to force her would be cruel and wrong.
She IS more important than the contents of her womb unless she chooses otherwise.

And regardless, the No side lost so you’re flogging a dead horse. The majority of the public simply do not agree with you.

A human embryo may well be the size of a grape, or not sentient, but it is still it’s own individual organism that is developing. It’s got 46 chromosomes and it’s genes contain the blueprint for everything it will be if left unimpeded in it’s development. Why shouldn’t this human being be entitled to similar rights to developed humans?

Sardonicat

Sean.3516 wrote: »

SusieBlue wrote: »

A human embryo the size of a small grape is not of equal value or worth to a living, breathing sentient woman with a family, friends and life to live.

If she chooses to place her pregnancy at equal value of her own life that’s her own prerogative but to force her would be cruel and wrong.
She IS more important than the contents of her womb unless she chooses otherwise.

And regardless, the No side lost so you’re flogging a dead horse. The majority of the public simply do not agree with you.

A human embryo may well be the size of a grape, or not sentient, but it is still it’s own individual organism that is developing. It’s got 46 chromosomes and it’s genes contain the blueprint for everything it will be if left unimpeded in it’s development. Why shouldn’t this human being be entitled to similar rights to developed humans?

Why should it?