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

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

judeboy101

https://www.thejournal.ie/holles-st-review-termination-of-pregnancy-4639179-May2019/

interesting one. Docs obviously fecked up test but mother didn't want a dodgy baby

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

So once your child is born you can kill it whenever because it is yours?

You can't and it's only you suggesting this bs.

Shop40

SusieBlue wrote: »

More strawmanning, I never said that. You clearly have no relevant points if you feel the need to resort to such dishonest tactics.

You clearly need to go offline and do something else, because you clearly have no time for points of view other than your own, clearly.

SusieBlue

Shop40 wrote: »

You clearly need to go offline and do something else, because you clearly have no time for points of view other than your own, clearly.

Quote where I said people should be allowed to kill their born children, or that they should be allowed to choose to go on killing sprees then.
I’ll wait.

Plumbthedepths

political analyst wrote:

Why didn't doctors tell the couple that the third and final test would, unlike the first and second tests, be definitive about whether or not their baby had Edwards syndrome?

Guess you'll have to ask the doctors that, random posters on this forum can't answer for them.

stefanovich

SusieBlue wrote: »

Unless it’s your womb or your baby, you shouldn’t have a say.

Does that include when the baby is born?

SusieBlue wrote: »

Taking choices away from people is not the answer. People don’t need obstacles put in their way to save them from themselves.

Rapists and spree killers do.

SusieBlue

stefanovich wrote: »

Does that include when the baby is born?

Rapists and spree killers do.

I don’t see what relevance killing born children or rapists going on sprees has to do with this case whatsoever, and I won’t derail the thread by going down that rabbit hole with you.

FishOnABike

stefanovich wrote: »

A hard life, or death. What would you choose? Most would choose the first because our most basic and primal instinct is to stay alive. An unwanted child with a tough life can grow up to be an amazing person.

Choose being the key word. I can envisage circumstances where I would like to have the choice but until faced with a specific set of circumstances I couldn't predict how I might choose - a long drawn out suffering or a peaceful acceptance of my own mortality.

stefanovich

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don’t see what relevance killing born children or rapists going on sprees has to do with this case whatsoever, and I won’t derail the thread by going down that rabbit hole with you.

Killing children is killing children.

stefanovich

FishOnABike wrote: »

Choose being the key word. I can envisage circumstances where I would like to have the choice but until faced with a specific set of circumstances I couldn't predict how I might choose - a long drawn out suffering or a peaceful acceptance of my own mortality.

Okay, what if the person who's primary responsibility was your care decided you weren't worth the hassle?

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

Killing children is killing children.

stefanovich wrote:

Okay, what if the person who's primary responsibility was your care decided you weren't worth the hassle?

You clearly have very little understanding of law.

stefanovich

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You clearly have very little understanding of law.

I don't think the supposed "ownership" of the child as a mother gives you the right to take away its life before or after birth.

What law are you referring to?

SusieBlue

stefanovich wrote: »

Okay, what if the person who's primary responsibility was your care decided you weren't worth the hassle?

Murdering people is illegal, pretty much everywhere worldwide. That has nothing to do with abortion though.

Any response on what you’d do with the 14 year old rape victim yet?

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

I don't think the supposed "ownership" of the child as a mother gives you the right to take away its life before or after birth.

You need to start a different thread as you are the only one suggesting the murder of a independent child.

stefanovich

SusieBlue wrote: »

Murdering people is illegal, pretty much everywhere worldwide. That has nothing to do with abortion though.

Any response on what you’d do with the 14 year old rape victim yet?

Abortion is ending a human life.
Murder is ending a human life.

I'd say they were related.

I'd say she should carry the baby to term and get all the support and care she needs.

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

Any response on what youâ€™d do with the 14 year old rape victim yet?

I'm guessing force the girl to carry to term. Pro lifers only seem to have an interest in the unborn.

political analyst

Boggles wrote: »

How do we know they didn't?

What mother wouldn't hold on to the slightest chance that her unborn child would survive?

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

I'd say she should carry the baby to term and get all the support and care she needs.

So the girls health and mental well being is a secondary consideration to you? Now that's disgusting.

stefanovich

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So the girls health and mental well being is a secondary consideration to you? Now that's disgusting.

Many 14 year olds have successfully given birth, there is nothing medically precluding her from doing so.

I'd have a great deal of compassion for her in this case. You are working under the assumption that her mental health would less affected by the abortion. Not sure that is true.

political analyst

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm guessing force the girl to carry to term. Pro lifers only seem to have an interest in the unborn.

That's a strawman argument because, if the girl does not have an abortion then her child, when born, would have the same constitutional rights as the girl. If a newborn child is deliberately killed, then it's murder in the eyes of the law. Abortion means that an unborn child conceived by rape is killed - even though capital punishment was abolished long ago and rape was never a capital offence in this jurisdiction - do you not see the contradiction there?

Plumbthedepths

political analyst wrote:

That's a strawman argument because, if the girl does not have an abortion then her child, when born, would have the same constitutional rights as the girl. If a newborn child is deliberately killed, then it's murder in the eyes of the law. Abortion means that an unborn child conceived by rape is killed - even though capital punishment was abolished long ago and rape was never a capital offence in this jurisdiction - do you not see the contradiction there?

Strawman argument? Not at all I responded to a comment. As I said pro lifers seem more concerned with the unborn as opposed to the pregnant girl/woman.

FishOnABike

FishOnABike wrote: »

Choose being the key word. I can envisage circumstances where I would like to have the choice but until faced with a specific set of circumstances I couldn't predict how I might choose - a long drawn out suffering or a peaceful acceptance of my own mortality.

stefanovich wrote: »

Okay, what if the person who's primary responsibility was your care decided you weren't worth the hassle?

We're getting a bit sidetracked from the original post but if the circumstances were such that I was incapable of deciding my view (or inability to have one) is probably moot.

In circumstances like suffering and in the terminal stages of a degenerative condition or in a permanent vegative state I would hope they would not allow me to suffer out of some sense of misguided (in my view) duty or loyalty and not take any extraordinary measures to resuscitate me or if it was allowed that they would help me go peacefully.

If I wasn't unduly suffering I wouldn't begrudge them some time to come to terms with my imminent passing.

Sofiztikated

My sympathies go out to the family, having to make a hard choice like this must be brutal, without having to deal with a crushing reality that a test was incorrect.

And to the lad that called her an abomination for having an abortion, catch yourself on pal. I'm sure she's feeling awful enough.

Anteayer

We've had this debate and had it in incredible depth for over 30 years.

Do we really need to rehash the abortion referendum in perpetuity? I don't honestly think there's any public appetite for a return to the 1980s or to Alabama for that matter either.

We have pretty conservative abortion laws that are very much in line with our relatively conservative continental peers.

It's like we always seem to have these debates about an idealised view of the world where everything is either right or wrong and there are absolutely no grey areas or pragmatism.

Biology and humanity exists entirely in the hard to define grey areas.

By all means look at it and see what can be improved but we can't step back into the dark ages of absolutism.

[Deleted User]

Anteayer wrote: »

We've had this debate and had it in incredible depth for over 30 years.

Some of us were hardly even aborted 30 years ago. We weren't around for the X case, and the gross inhumanity of the old regime has only really become apparent to us in the past 3 years when Repeal began to gain serious momentum.

It's still a fresh debate for a lot of people. Also, (obligatory reminder) you don''t have to read the thread or post here?

stefanovich

The inhumanity of not being able to end human life with least inconvenience.

mvl

Just saw this article in independent ... (guess we will see more of these next)
""I then had a chorionic villus sampling (CVS) diagnostic test in the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin and it too came back positive."
However, she opted to have an amniocentesis three weeks later and it came back clear"
So this is my question too: why, if only CVS was considered for this family ? has medical staff guided them to have amniocentesis done too (since it can be done after 15/16 weeks) before the abortion, especially since we're talking about a wanted baby ?!?
Cause if no one did, this is a process failure too, not only limited information/knowledge on behalf of parents to be.

[Deleted User]

stefanovich wrote: »

The inhumanity of not being able to end human life with least inconvenience.

The inhumanity of the State forcing birth on any woman. That's something you'd instinctively associate with some mediaeval, savage society, not a modern democracy.

Was it Gloria Steinem who once said "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"?

Anteayer

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Some of us were hardly even aborted 30 years ago. We weren't around for the X case, and the gross inhumanity of the old regime has only really become apparent to us in the past 3 years when Repeal began to gain serious momentum.

It's still a fresh debate for a lot of people. Also, (obligatory reminder) you don''t have to read the thread or post here?

Are you telling me not to post on a thread on a forum that you do not moderate?!
I just want to clarify what you're saying there as I'm not sure if it's directed at me or a general comment.

Nobelium

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So the girls health and mental well being is a secondary consideration to you? Now that's disgusting.

How do you know there is only one girl involved ?, the baby could be a girl as well.

[Deleted User]

Anteayer wrote: »

Are you telling me not to post on a thread on a forum that you do not moderate?!
I just want to clarify what you're saying there as I'm not sure if it's directed at me or a general comment.

Eh, no. Did you notice that it was a question? As in, do you realise that you don't have to read this thread?