Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Options
1…5681011…55

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    votecounts wrote: »
    Disgusting comment

    But true, sadly.


  • Options
    #213
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Listen, thats the new reality, they didn't want the baby once they heard it "wrongly" had a deficiency and decided to participate in this "new" throwaway process.

    With great powers comes greater responsibility.

    A deficiency?
    Maybe educate yourself on what Edwards syndrome actually is before you make such ignorant comments.
    Most babies with this condition die at birth or soon after, for goodness sake. Only 12% of that make it to their first birthday.
    Dismissing it as if it’s some sort of minor inconvenience is really nasty.


  • Options
    #214
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Phil.x wrote:
    But true, sadly.


    Actually it's not true as you don't know what the couple went through before they opted for abortion . Yet you claimed it was 'throwaway'. I suspect you are trolling, although it might be better if you educated yourself on the condition that the couple was told the foetus had.


  • Options
    #215
    screamer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,134 ✭✭✭screamer


    Poor little one, it’s him/her my sympathies are with.

    Of course we don’t know all the ins and outs. A test probability is just that, a possible outcome, even with a high probability of abnormality, it’s not a definite. People have now the right to chose, and every choice in life has consequences.


  • Options
    #216
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Prehaps one of the nastiest comments I have ever seen on Boards. You think anyone would consider abortion so flippantly. Pathetic.

    While I disagree with the poster's general tone, you're naive to think there aren't people in the world who consider abortion flippantly. In the UK 1 in 5 pregnancies result in abortion. There are women there who have had 6 and 7 abortions.

    Only a matter of time before it's normalized into Irish society. Another step in the process of devaluing human life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Jaster Rogue wrote:
    While I disagree with the poster's general tone, you're naive to think there aren't people in the world who consider abortion flippantly. In the UK 1 in 5 pregnancies result in abortion. There are women there who have had 6 and 7 abortions.


    You're naive to think I will accept nonsense figures that were shown to be false during the Ref campaign.


  • Options
    #218
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    While I disagree with the poster's general tone, you're naive to think there aren't people in the world who consider abortion flippantly. In the UK 1 in 5 pregnancies result in abortion. There are women there who have had 6 and 7 abortions.

    Leaving aside the fact that that statistic was debunked several times over during the referendum, would you consider someone so ‘flippant’ that they ended up needing 6/7 abortions to be the kind of person who would be a good mother?

    Do you think it’s in the best interests of an innocent baby to force them on an irresponsible woman who doesn’t want to be a parent?

    All it does it weaponise children into real life punishments to be bestowed on their careless mothers.

    You need to consider what kind of life these children will be born into.
    It’s not very pro-life to not consider the consequences of forcing women like that to have babies they do not want.
    Taking away the choice is not the answer.
    There’s already enough unwanted, unloved, neglected kids in the world without adding more to it.


  • Options
    #219
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    A deficiency?
    Maybe educate yourself on what Edwards syndrome actually is before you make such ignorant comments.
    Most babies with this condition die at birth or soon after, for goodness sake. Only 12% of that make it to their first birthday.
    Dismissing it as if it’s some sort of minor inconvenience is really nasty.

    Maybe educate yourself on the case, the health baby didn't have trisomy 18,edwards syndrome.

    The test for this condition isn't fully conclusive, maybe educate yourself about that in case you find yourself in that situation.


  • Options
    #220
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Leaving aside the fact that that statistic was debunked several times over during the referendum, would you consider someone so ‘flippant’ that they ended up needing 6/7 abortions to be the kind of person who would be a good mother?

    Do you think it’s in the best interests of an innocent baby to force them on an irresponsible woman who doesn’t want to be a parent?

    All it does it weaponise children into real life punishments to be bestowed on their careless mothers.

    You need to consider what kind of life these children will be born into.
    It’s not very pro-life to not consider the consequences of forcing women like that to have babies they do not want.
    Taking away the choice is not the answer.
    There’s already enough unwanted, unloved, neglected kids in the world without adding more to it.

    Wow.......


  • Options
    #221
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Listen, thats the new reality, they didn't want the baby once they heard it "wrongly" had a deficiency and decided to participate in this "new" throwaway process.

    It's not a simple deficiency though. If I was told I could have a child which will suffer their entire life, which will probably only measure in days after birth, I would make the exact same decision, and I would be doing it out of mercy for the baby, not because they might be inconvenient for me or aren't what I was looking for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,505 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Leaving aside the fact that that statistic was debunked several times over during the referendum, would you consider someone so ‘flippant’ that they ended up needing 6/7 abortions to be the kind of person who would be a good mother?

    Do you think it’s in the best interests of an innocent baby to force them on an irresponsible woman who doesn’t want to be a parent?

    All it does it weaponise children into real life punishments to be bestowed on their careless mothers.

    You need to consider what kind of life these children will be born into.
    It’s not very pro-life to not consider the consequences of forcing women like that to have babies they do not want.
    Taking away the choice is not the answer.
    There’s already enough unwanted, unloved, neglected kids in the world without adding more to it.

    Millions of people have been born as unwanted children and have been adopted by people who cannot have children themselves.

    Abortion is necessary in a variety of situations, but to dehumanise people simply because their mother doesn't want them isn't something that anybody should support.

    I think you're beginning to strain to make your point at this stage.


  • Options
    #223
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Maybe educate yourself on the case, the health baby didn't have trisomy 18,edwards syndrome.

    The test for this condition isn't fully conclusive, maybe educate yourself about that in case you find yourself in that situation.

    Are you having a laugh? They believed at the time of procuring the abortion that the baby had Edwards syndrome.
    The fact that they thought the baby had the condition is very relevant to the case so I’m baffled as to why you are trying to dismiss the relevance.

    Edwards syndrome is not a mere ‘deficiency’ as you so eloquently put it, it’s a serious life limiting condition that causes most children with it to die at birth.
    It was undoubtedly with this in mind that the parents decided to go ahead with the termination.

    You appear to be neglecting to consider the fact that you have hindsight on the matter, which the parents didn’t.


  • Options
    #224
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    kowloon wrote: »
    It's not a simple deficiency though. If I was told I could have a child which will suffer their entire life, which will probably only measure in days after birth, I would make the exact same decision, and I would be doing it out of mercy for the baby, not because they might be inconvenient for me or aren't what I was looking for.

    It’s easy to be pro-life when it’s someone else who has to suffer.


  • Options
    #225
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    While I disagree with the poster's general tone, you're naive to think there aren't people in the world who consider abortion flippantly.
    And why not?

    It does sound counter-intuitive to deny the personhood of a foetus, especially if you've been raised (as most us will have been) in a Christian environment. But lets put aside our instincts and employ logic instead: A foetus the size of a pear is no more a person than a pear is the equivalent of its parent tree.

    At the heart of things is the contrast between the organisational complexity of the parent structure and its offshoot. To equalize the two is to say that the eating of a pear is the moral equivalent of felling a pear tree (the latter being a crime, I hope).

    This is so bonkers when it is applied to pear trees, that when you quite naturally extend the principle to human beings, and you start to wreck people's lives with your absurd dogma, that people lose their patience very rapidly when you say things like "AND, I've heard some women are flippant about it".

    By the way, if you've read this post as somehow thinking that I'm making an equivalence between human adults and adult pear-trees, do us both a favour and lets not engage. Because that's obviously ridiculous.


  • Options
    #226
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Lets explore your mind for just one daunting moment.

    What is your objective in saying such a nasty thing?
    Even if you believe their actions were throwaway (casual; not taken seriously), and regardless of how you got that notion, why would you deliberately come on here to post it?

    To be a nasty person? To upset someone else who might have had an abortion, is that the objective? Enlighten me. What's the desired outcome from posting that?

    Simple, to score points innit?


  • Options
    #227
    rovers_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    The hypocrisy of the Pro choice side here is unbelievable.
    They took their opportunity to run with their modern Ireland poster victim Savita Hallipinavar to push through their agenda, and now they declare this is tragedy is a once off, an anomaly...

    Sadly this is the way this country has gone, this poor baby was written off the moment their was a possibility of a problem.
    The new hip liberal generation who don't face a challenge, they take the soft option, as long as their lifestyle doesn't take the hit...

    These want to be parents should have been encouraged to wait and hope that things may turn out well, and at least to give every medial avenue a chance. They were steered towards the soft inhumane option by the agenda of their hospitals senior obs, who was incidentally a poster girl for the repeal campaign.


  • Options
    #228
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    The 8th amendment would have given a legal right to life to this poor defenceless innocent human life, and prevented his or her killing. Sad but true. All the right on lefty liberal 'woke' brigade : are you proud now?

    Chances are this couple likely would have headed to England.

    #loveboats


  • Options
    #229
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    nullzero wrote: »
    Millions of people have been born as unwanted children and have been adopted by people who cannot have children themselves.

    Abortion is necessary in a variety of situations, but to dehumanise people simply because their mother doesn't want them isn't something that anybody should support.

    I think you're beginning to strain to make your point at this stage.

    You’re putting words in my mouth now, I never suggested that those born in less than ideal circumstances can’t lead prosperous happy lives or anything of the sort.
    I’m not dehumanising anyone.

    I reject the notion that someone against abortion can judge & criticise a woman they deem to be ‘flippant’ (aka a sl*t) for getting abortion after abortion, while not considering the fact that a woman that irresponsible is not the kind of person we should be forcing into motherhood.
    That is all I am suggesting.


  • Options
    #230
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    rovers_runner wrote: »
    The hypocrisy of the Pro choice side here is unbelievable.
    They took their opportunity to run with their modern Ireland poster victim Savita Hallipinavar to push through their agenda, and now they declare this is tragedy is a once off, an anomaly...

    Sadly this is the way this country has gone, this poor baby was written off the moment their was a possibility of a problem.
    The new hip liberal generation who don't face a challenge, they take the soft option, as long as their lifestyle doesn't take the hit...

    These want to be parents should have been encouraged to wait and hope that things may turn out well, and at least to give every medial avenue a chance. They were steered towards the soft inhumane option by the agenda of their hospitals senior obs, who was incidentally a poster girl for the repeal campaign.

    An awful lot of speculation here.

    Tell me this, what medical avenue can be explored to treat a child with Edwards Syndrome?


  • Options
    #231
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    kowloon wrote: »
    It's not a simple deficiency though. If I was told I could have a child which will suffer their entire life, which will probably only measure in days after birth, I would make the exact same decision, and I would be doing it out of mercy for the baby, not because they might be inconvenient for me or aren't what I was looking for.

    Well then you didn't do your homework now did you, you'd be in the same situation at the couple on the news.

    Mercy for the baby!!... please open your eyes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Well then you didn't do your homework now did you, you'd be in the same situation at the couple on the news.

    Mercy for the baby!!... please open your eyes.

    Sorry do you understand the concept of what hindsight is?

    Can you confirm if you are aware that at the time of getting the abortion, they believed the child did in fact have Edwards syndrome?


  • Options
    #233
    rovers_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    Pro choice side, when does a foetus cease being foetus and become a baby?
    When does a foetus have a right to life? The ten or so seconds after it's born and draws a breadth?
    Do you consider them fair fame up to this moment, if not astetically perfect they can still be cast aside? Because that's the way it's going.

    The beginning of social eugenics.


  • Options
    #234
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    rovers_runner wrote: »
    Pro choice side, when does a foetus cease being foetus and become a baby?
    When does a foetus have a right to life? The ten or so seconds after it's born and draws a breadth?
    Do you consider them fair fame up to this moment, if not astetically perfect they can still be cast aside? Because that's the way it's going.

    The beginning of social eugenics.

    This was all done to death in the run up to the referendum.
    There was at least 10 threads across boards on it.


  • Options
    #235
    rovers_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    amcalester wrote: »
    rovers_runner wrote: »
    The hypocrisy of the Pro choice side here is unbelievable.
    They took their opportunity to run with their modern Ireland poster victim Savita Hallipinavar to push through their agenda, and now they declare this is tragedy is a once off, an anomaly...

    Sadly this is the way this country has gone, this poor baby was written off the moment their was a possibility of a problem.
    The new hip liberal generation who don't face a challenge, they take the soft option, as long as their lifestyle doesn't take the hit...

    These want to be parents should have been encouraged to wait and hope that things may turn out well, and at least to give every medial avenue a chance. They were steered towards the soft inhumane option by the agenda of their hospitals senior obs, who was incidentally a poster girl for the repeal campaign.

    An awful lot of speculation here.

    Tell me this, what medical avenue can be explored to treat a child with Edwards Syndrome?

    The presence of that condition hadn't been definitely confirmed when they made their decision along with obs.
    There is no indication the mother was at risk medically nor was there a threat of a sudden miscarriage.
    In that instance why the rush by obs to proceed with abortion?
    Was it under the hospitals new direction of liberal Master or maternity?


  • Options
    #236
    Charles Ingles
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭Charles Ingles


    Im the most staunch anti abortion person on boards, but I've always had respectful back and forth debate.
    Because I genuinely believe that life is s gift from God and we all have a soul.
    This is a serious wake up call for Ireland and the reality of the repealing of the eight amendment


  • Options
    #237
    screamer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,134 ✭✭✭screamer


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    You’re putting words in my mouth now, I never suggested that those born in less than ideal circumstances can’t lead prosperous happy lives or anything of the sort.
    I’m not dehumanising anyone.

    I reject the notion that someone against abortion can judge & criticise a woman they deem to be ‘flippant’ (aka a sl*t) for getting abortion after abortion, while not considering the fact that a woman that irresponsible is not the kind of person we should be forcing into motherhood.
    That is all I am suggesting.

    Maybe sterilization would be a better way for such an irresponsible person to ensure that they didn’t have children foisted upon them???? I find the notion of your post to be pure BS. There’s many a way to avoid pregnancy, multiple abortions seems like a lazy birth control method, lazy and wrong. But as you were.......


  • Options
    #238
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,505 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    You’re putting words in my mouth now, I never suggested that those born in less than ideal circumstances can’t lead prosperous happy lives or anything of the sort.
    I’m not dehumanising anyone.

    I reject the notion that someone against abortion can judge & criticise a woman they deem to be ‘flippant’ (aka a sl*t) for getting abortion after abortion, while not considering the fact that a woman that irresponsible is not the kind of person we should be forcing into motherhood.
    That is all I am suggesting.

    I'm not putting words in your mouth at all, I'm responding to the words you wrote.
    You're one of the main culprits of making this thread about repeal.
    I'm struggling to remember the last post you made that actually references the case at hand.


  • Options
    #239
    screamer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,134 ✭✭✭screamer


    Triple check, quadruple check. If it’s a much wanted baby wouldn’t you ???????


  • Options
    #240
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    screamer wrote: »
    Maybe sterilization would be a better way for such an irresponsible person to ensure that they didn’t have children foisted upon them???? I find the notion of your post to be pure BS. There’s many a way to avoid pregnancy, multiple abortions seems like a lazy birth control method, lazy and wrong. But as you were.......

    I find the notion that you just invented an entire narrative on my behalf to be even more BS.

    To confirm I don’t not condone multiple abortions in lieu of birth control and I in no way indicated that I support it in my post. I don’t appreciate you implying that’s what I was insinuating.

    I pointed out that if someone is very ‘flippant’ & they do not want to have a baby, they are probably not ideal candidates to have forced motherhood foisted on them.
    I made a simple observation and you are adding arms and legs onto it to suit your own theories.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Sorry do you understand the concept of what hindsight is?

    Can you confirm if you are aware that at the time of getting the abortion, they believed the child did in fact have Edwards syndrome?

    The test isn't fully conclusive......can you not grasp that??? or are you happy with sweeping you're little secret under the carpet.


Advertisement