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

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

In Ireland please.

No, I have no examples of it in Ireland. Would you answer the question if it was an imaginary scenario?

*edit* Also, the fact that there may be no examples of the scenario having happened in Ireland does not mean that it will never happen. So I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion as we may be faced with such a situation in the future. I suppose you'll leave it till then? Or tell me statistically it will not happen? Anything to avoid the question....

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No, I have no examples of it in Ireland. Would you answer the question if it was an imaginary scenario?

I went back and answered - I edited my post.

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

In Ireland please?

Im not really sure what point you are trying to score here?

Is it so you can say HAHA you are NOT really pro choice! if someone says a girl has to stay pregnant after a certain point?

I think its reasonable for *most* pro choice people to have a cut off point and that cut off is generally determined by the possibility of the fetus surviving outside the womb and the presence of brain activity. We dont have an "exact" date for that so it seems safe to say lets have a law that cuts off around 20 weeks or so, because we do know for sure that there is no brain activity or the ability to survive outside the womb. So there might be the odd edge case where a 20 week old fetus survives, but the probability is that they wont.

Does that mean that victims of rape who are 24 weeks pregnant may be refused an abortion? Maybe - but is that relevant? Probably not because although possible its a rare occurence and hard cases make bad laws. You dont legislate on the extreme cases - it would be silly to do so.

I feel like you are just pushing extreme hypotheticals to create a reaction as opposed to have a discussion?

Or you are trying to push an extreme position that YOU call pro choice but that is not representative of most pro choice people and therefore say "I think this extreme thing is ok and I am pro choice hence pro choice means this extreme thing".

I'm not trying to score points at all. I agree with you that it would be a rare scenario (it is interesting that some countries such as Latvia have an extended window only in cases of rape to allow for trauma concerns). Thank you for your honest answer.

Can I ask you this? Would you be against legislating for on demand abortion up to 24 weeks?

I feel it is relevant to a discussion thread in a post repeal Ireland. Who knows, perhaps there will be groups pushing for it in the future? I certainly heard murmurings for it during the referendum. Note also that some European countries have less restrictive access to abortion already such as Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well according to AOC the world will end in 12 year's, so it doesn't matter what conspiracy theories Gemma spouts.
AOC is bat **** crazy

She's basing her assertions on this UN report as described in Newsweek here. From that article;

Ocasio-Cortez introduced the Green New Deal this month along with Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts. The ambitious plan would have the U.S. economy focus on renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuel and coal. The plan would also work to strengthen labor laws, health care, access to higher education, housing and public ownership of certain institutions.

The deal, which some estimate could cost $1 trillion, follows a United Nations report that predicted we have only 12 years to limit or reverse the effects of climate change before its impact causes unmanageable drought, floods, extreme heat and life-threatening weather events.

Her choice of language is intentionally alarmist, but the fundamentals underlying her argument are reasonable and well researched. In my opinion/ she's certainly orders of magnitude more rational than anyone basing their arguments around ancient religious texts and beliefs.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

With respect, if you come onto an atheist forum with arguments based around your religious beliefs you're going to run into a bit of flak. We all respect a persons right to hold a religious belief, but may not respect the belief itself, particularly when it foisted upon us and used as an excuse to compromise other internationally agreed upon and respected human rights. It is worth remembering that when you talk about 'God', that's your god, not mine.

Bannasidhe

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Oh my god you are quoting AOC and I get mocked for supporting Gemma o Doherty.
AOC is off the charts crazy

Cabaal wrote: »

Amusing but false
Nobody wins at crazy bingo like Gemma does,

... [snip]

Pherekydes wrote: »

You forgot intensive chemtrailing. :pac:

Igotadose wrote: »

AOC is one of the sanest politicians in decades. ...[snip]
.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well according to AOC the world will end in 12 year's, so it doesn't matter what conspiracy theories Gemma spouts.
AOC is bat **** crazy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

According to many republicans the earth is less than 10,000 years old, a man spoke to a burning bush, a virgin gave birth and a 900 year old man parted the sea.

Now thats batshyte crazy!

Mod: As interesting as it may be to discuss the merits of the redoubtable AOC as compared to the doubtable GO'D please to return to the topic at hand. Thanks.

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

With respect, if you come onto an atheist forum with arguments based around your religious beliefs you're going to run into a bit of flak. We all respect a persons right to hold a religious belief, but may not respect the belief itself, particularly when it foisted upon us and used as an excuse to compromise other internationally agreed upon and respected human rights. It is worth remembering that when you talk about 'God', that's your god, not mine.

I come to this forum because I like debate exchanging opinions, and to try and have an open debate.
Can I ask you a question if you don't mind, do you believe in an after life or when you die is that it?
That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb.
Also no point in us all living in echo chambers agreeing with each other

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I come to this forum because I like debate exchanging opinions, and to try and have an open debate.

Pretty much the same as most of us there I think and what this site is all about.

Can I ask you a question if you don't mind, do you believe in an after life or when you die is that it?

I'm of the opinion that when I die that's it, no going on, no coming back.

That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb. Also no point in us all living in echo chambers agreeing with each other

That's fine, but that is your belief system and not one shared by everyone else. The problem I have with the religiously informed pro-life argument is that it gives this subjective belief precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Recent referendums have illustrated that most people in this country tend to vote in a secular manner, so while they may share your belief to a greater or lesser extent, they respect and give precedent the rights of other people who may hold different values.

I appreciate the argument of ensoulment for some Christians, but it is clearly unreasonable to attempt to apply it to those that do not share that belief. How for example would you feel if your basic human rights or those of people you loved were compromised on the basis of a belief from Hindu or Islam?

The right to hold a religious belief is due respect, the belief itself is not.

[Deleted User]

Kidchameleon wrote: »

At 24 weeks a fetus is viable in a small number of cases. How can we tell which ones are not viable?

Your starting to contradict yourself a bit here, you apparently known a person who was born at 24 weeks and is a healthy youngster. You spent some time arguing the point with a poster where you infer that the survival rate was higher.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

At 24 weeks a fetus is viable in a small number of cases. How can we tell which ones are not viable?

None of them are actually viable at 24 weeks. Some of them can be kept alive using life support and resuscitation techniques until they get to a stage where they do become viable, ie can breathe, feed etc without the help of machines and intravenous drips etc.

Basically science has allowed us to substitute a hi-tech cot (and lots of medical procedures) for those last 15/16 weeks in the womb. And even then the majority of those that survive at 24 weeks have significant ongoing health issues.

It's also becoming clear that among "older" premature babies, around 28-32 weeks, who seemed to have fewer health consequences actually have far more behavioural and learning difficulties than had previously been recorded.

So no, I don't consider a 24 week baby to be viable really. It's on the cusp of viability, and if it were my baby (not talking about abortion here, just extreme prematurity) I'm not sure I'd want it to survive if the price it paid for that was to be permanently disabled. Which is the likeliest outcome.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Response to post #638

You also said in this post that there is no current evidence to say a 24 week old fetus is sentient. That is just factually incorrect. If a child is born at 24 weeks, he or she is most certainly sentient.

Pardon me for pointing out that a live born child is no longer a foetus [or unborn child if you like] therefore has a greater chance of responding to a sentience test than a foetus in a woman's womb given that they are in visibly different quarters when it comes to testing for sentience. Also being blunt here, even being birthed is no guarantee that a child may be in any way sentient.

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I come to this forum because I like debate exchanging opinions, and to try and have an open debate.

That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb.

I haven't come across the foetus has a soul angle in respect to abortion. Are you now putting forward for consideration that the possible presence of a soul in a foetus may be a ground for a ban on abortion? That is so different from the sentience angle being argued by Kidchameleon, another debater here.

I know that you have asserted that you are of Christian faith and that you also hold a belief that abortions should be allowed in some circumstances with respect to the independent viability of some foetus after birth. It seems to me that you may be conflicted over the three circumstances set out above by you.

splinter65

From the Irish Independent

Indo wrote:

An external investigation has been ordered at the National Maternity Hospital into the circumstances involving an abortion after a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality.

It is understood a termination of pregnancy was carried out after a screening test was performed privately at the hospital.

The findings indicated the baby had a possible diagnosis of Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome which is recognised as a fatal foetal abnormality under the The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act - which came into force in January.

A spokesman for the National Maternity Hospital said it does not comment on individual cases.

He said he can confirm that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will conduct a review of a recent case at the hospital.

It is alleged that not all stages of the test results were available before the couple were in a position to make an informed decision.

The results of the final part of the definitive findings of the screening process had not been returned from the UK when the couple were told of the diagnosis.

The couple went ahead with the termination but later learned that the test results later were negative for the anomaly.

It is understood the pregnancy was terminated in the first trimester.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Health Simon Harris, who has been called on carry out a a statutory investigation.

The external review is to be carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, who will nominate experts.

I can’t see that the parents have any cause of action against NMH. The abortion was entirely their desicion alone. Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby. FFA is not a medical condition it’s a legal thing. My condolences nonetheless.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby.

The same 8th amendment that cost a woman her life.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

I can’t see that the parents have any cause of action against NMH. The abortion was entirely their desicion alone. Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby. FFA is not a medical condition it’s a legal thing. My condolences nonetheless.

FFA is indeed medical, and not a legal thing, your post is your attempt at grandstanding, not actual compassion or sorrow at a medical misdiagnosis.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The same 8th amendment that cost a woman her life.

Are you referring to Mrs Halapanaveer who died of sepsis through medical neglect?
Do pro choice intend to continue dragging this dead lady out every time there’s an Irish abortion cock up like this?
The 8th amendment would have saved this baby’s life. These parents are bereaved because the 8th amendment was removed.

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you referring to Mrs Halapanaveer who died of sepsis through medical neglect?
Do pro choice intend to continue dragging this dead lady out every time there’s an Irish abortion cock up like this?
The 8th amendment would have saved this baby’s life. These parents are bereaved because the 8th amendment was removed.

It’s an absolute disgrace that you continue to deny the responsibility the 8th amendment had in the death of Savita. Shame on you.

THE NEGLIGENCE COULD NEVER HAD OCCURRED IF SHE HAD BEEN GRANTED THE ABORTION SHE REQUESTED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO HER DEATH.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you referring to Mrs Halapanaveer who died of sepsis through medical neglect?
Do pro choice intend to continue dragging this dead lady out every time there’s an Irish abortion cock up like this?
The 8th amendment would have saved this baby’s life. These parents are bereaved because the 8th amendment was removed.

It's not an abortion cock up as you put it, the rest of your post is grandstanding.

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's not an abortion cock up as you put it, the rest of your post is grandstanding.

it's not. it's a genuine view that has come from a good place. i know this having read this poster's posts on the issue throughout the discussions.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

it's not. it's a genuine view that has come from a good place. i know this having read this poster's posts on the issue throughout the discussions.

Really, because your thanking posters in the the following thread who are calling for people who have had abortions or support pro choice to be murdered

Also have screen shots with your thanking the poster just in case they magically disappear

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=97

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...&postcount=117

So sort of goes against your earlier statements that you don't thank such posts or agree with such posters.

As for the poster in question your inaccurate to say the least in relation to their views.

splinter65

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s an absolute disgrace that you continue to deny the responsibility the 8th amendment had in the death of Savita. Shame on you.

THE NEGLIGENCE COULD NEVER HAD OCCURRED IF SHE HAD BEEN GRANTED THE ABORTION SHE REQUESTED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO HER DEATH.

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Shouting in capitals doesnâ€™t make you right Susie. Itâ€™s just your opinion thatâ€™s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

How is it a debacle? The couple in question sought an abortion based on the information available at the time. The abortion was a success, hindsight of course is always 20/20

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

Your ignoring the fact that the 8th was proven to have been a contributing factor in her death and that the couple who your attempting to grandstand on may have travelled to the UK to obtain an abortion based on the medical misdiagnosis they received if the 8th was not repealed. So the baby would not be alive if repeal was unsuccessful as your claiming as a fact.

drunkmonkey

"It is understood the pregnancy was terminated in the second trimester"

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/investigation-ordered-into-abortion-at-national-maternity-hospital-38119970.html

That's f'n terrible. Harris's head should be on a spike along with whoever advised those parents without 100% confirmation the baby didn't stand a chance.
I can't imagine how much it hurts to lose a child but like this, never ever should it happen.

Plumbthedepths

drunkmonkey wrote:

That's f'n terrible. Harris's head should be on a spike along with whoever advised those parents without 100% confirmation the baby didn't stand a chance. I can't imagine how much it hurts to lose a child but like this, never ever should it happen.

Did Harris carry out the abortion? I don't like the guy or his politics but how is he to blame?

drunkmonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Did Harris carry out the abortion? I don't like the guy or his politics but how is he to blame?

He championed abortion. I wonder does he still hold the same view after having a child. He's the minister for health, he's a disaster. The proper checks and balances should have been in place, they weren't, his head goes on the spike.

[Deleted User]

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He championed abortion. I wonder does he still hold the same view after having a child. He's the minister for health, he's a disaster. The proper checks and balances should have been in place, they weren't, his head goes on the spike.

You would have to include most politicians in that case from all major parties except the alt right ones as they all supported repeal.

Also your ignoring the fact that the couple could have travelled for an abortion based on the misdiagnosis

drunkmonkey

He's the minister for health, buck stops with him. It's 100% his fault the proper mechanisms weren't in place to prevent it happening.

drunkmonkey

DubInMeath wrote: »

Also your ignoring the fact that the couple could have travelled for an abortion based on the misdiagnosis

Let them travel with a half arsed diagnosis it shouldn't have happened here, your ignoring the fact they may have let nature take it's course and have a healthy child right now. One sided assumptions are bullcrap to be honest. A healthy child is dead, deal in facts.

aloyisious

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He's the minister for health, buck stops with him. It's 100% his fault the proper mechanisms weren't in place to prevent it happening.

What are these proper mechanisms?