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
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

1…1314161819…55

Comments

  • #452
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Eh, no. Did you notice that it was a question? As in, do you realise that you don't have to read this thread?

    Questions can be rhetorical and it looks rather pointed.


  • #453
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    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"?

    Did the state force her to get pregnant?

    Wow, a feminist said something once. Who cares?


  • #454
    dartboardio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    Ridiculous for them to be suing the hospital.

    Termination took place because it was HIGHLY likely it would have fatal abnormalities. Thats worth the risk.

    They were happy to go ahead with the termination and now want to sue because it ended up being the very less likely outcome?

    Basxxards.


  • #455
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

    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

    Interesting is right. Apparently it's grand to abort a healthy child on purpose, but tragic when you do it to them by accident . . .


  • #456
    Muzzymor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36 ✭Muzzymor


    It's a sad story. That said I can't quite wrap my head arround the hypocritical pseudo-morality that treats the killing of an unborn child as one of either a)a tragic ending of an irreplaceable human life or b) a routine procedure that is every woman's right and simply gets rid of a "parasite/foetus/bunch of cells" or whatever the pro-abortion lingo of the day is because it's part of "her body" , with the only distinction between the two being whether the mother wanted the child or not.

    If you value unborn life and think killing an unborn child is wrong, you value it enough to feel that abortion is wrong. If you think abortion isn't wrong or immoral then surely a case like this while a shame is just sad because the mother lost a foetus and it can be easily rectified by the lady in question getting pregnant again so she can grow a new "foetus" or clump or cells inside her.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,562 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    political analyst wrote: »
    What mother wouldn't hold on to the slightest chance that her unborn child would survive?

    Em, lots of them. For various reasons. Stupid question really.


  • #458
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,783 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    political analyst wrote: »
    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?

    Agreed that rape, in some cases, should've been a capital offence.


  • #459
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    stefanovich wrote: »
    I used the word "it" because I did not know the gender of the child not to dehumanise like yourself.

    Which is still not what I said in the post you replied to. You edited out what I was talking about, and then substituted your own "it" instead.

    AGAIN what I wrote was this: "What makes it different is that many of us retain our moral and ethical concerns for ACTUAL sentient agents. Not potential ones that never happened like you do."

    There was a potential sentient human here. It however was terminated. It never came to be. My moral concern is for ACTUAL sentient entities.... the couple in this case..... not potential ones that never came to be, like you are concerned with.

    See the difference now?
    stefanovich wrote: »
    A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

    To you. But I am yet to see you make a single moral or ethical argument supporting such a position. Is it.... forthcoming perhaps?
    stefanovich wrote: »
    Well, it is surely a violation of nature.

    By what standards? What standard of "nature" are you using here? After all are anti biotics not a violation of nature by the same token? Glasses? Heart by pass?

    We over ride the purview and dictates of nature all the time. There is no argument on offer here, least of all from you, as to why we should not be.

    So why is abortion suddenly magically different from everything else we do with our medical science?
    stefanovich wrote: »
    Killing children is killing children.

    And aborting a fetus is aborting a fetus.

    It is not us that is missing the distinction here.


  • #460
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Nobelium wrote: »
    Interesting is right. Apparently it's grand to abort a healthy child on purpose, but tragic when you do it to them by accident . . .
    i dont think anyone ever claimed that the pro choice position was one devoid of hypocrisy. We indulge in hypocrisy in just about every facet of life.


  • #461
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,783 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    You imagine wrong.


    Not really

    Depends on the legal system. Hence my original question - it would seem fraught with potential legal peril to 'recommend' a termination. Lawsuits could show up based on presumption of 'coercion.'

    So, what was the circumstance where you believe you (or someone you know) were recommended a termination? I don't know what the practice is in Ireland, hence my original question. Just thinking lawerly, it seems unlikely a termination would ever be recommended. Offered as an option is very different. Even if the patient said, "Dr. what would you recommend," the doctor can choose not to make a recommendation but just offer the options couched in "It's your decision"


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    stefanovich wrote: »
    What kind of question is that?

    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.

    A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

    Then you’ve likely met a lot of abominations in your life. It’s highly unlikely that you don’t know or have never have known women who have had an abortion. If you found out that a close female friend of yours had an abortion, would the friendship be over?


  • #463
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    It's kinda weird that a living person who is dying and in agony has no right to die, but a perfectly healthy baby who has no say in the matter can legally be killed.

    That is the kind of nonsense that alas comes from a misguided but well meant focus on "life at all costs". People see "life" and they think that is more than enough to rush to protect. And it results in the kind of nonsense dissonance you identify here.

    A better approach to my mind is to work out what we are actually trying to do with our morality and ethics. Such as to increase the well being, freedoms, and choices of actual sentient agents that can suffer.

    When you take THAT approach you do indeed find it weird why we would not let someone suffering die at their own behest.... or why we would be concerned about the rights and well being of a fetal blob even in and of itself.... let alone at the expense of the rights, well being, and freedoms of the actual sentient agent it inhabits.


  • #464
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Wow, a feminist said something once. Who cares?
    My comment was directed at the grimly mocking yet provocative observation that Steinem made. The fact that Steinem is a feminist is as irrelevant as the fact (I'm sure of it) that you are a man.


  • #465
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Then you’ve likely met a lot of abominations in your life. It’s highly unlikely that you don’t know or have never have known women who have had an abortion. If you found out that a close female friend of yours had an abortion, would the friendship be over?

    I am not calling the woman an abomination. It's the act of abortion I am referring to.


  • #466
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    stefanovich wrote: »
    I am not calling the woman an abomination. It's the act of abortion I am referring to.

    Lucky, lucky ladies who you thankfully don’t consider abominations. Just one of the decisions they made. That’s all. Phew!


  • #467
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Lucky, lucky ladies who you thankfully don’t consider abominations. Just one of the decisions they made. That’s all. Phew!

    Exactly. And I think the push to normalise this is only going to make this worse.


  • #468
    Muzzymor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36 ✭Muzzymor


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which is still not what I said in the post you replied to. You edited out what I was talking about, and then substituted your own "it" instead.

    AGAIN what I wrote was this: "What makes it different is that many of us retain our moral and ethical concerns for ACTUAL sentient agents. Not potential ones that never happened like you do."

    There was a potential sentient human here. It however was terminated. It never came to be. My moral concern is for ACTUAL sentient entities.... the couple in this case..... not potential ones that never came to be, like you are concerned with.

    See the difference now?



    To you. But I am yet to see you make a single moral or ethical argument supporting such a position. Is it.... forthcoming perhaps?



    By what standards? What standard of "nature" are you using here? After all are anti biotics not a violation of nature by the same token? Glasses? Heart by pass?

    We over ride the purview and dictates of nature all the time. There is no argument on offer here, least of all from you, as to why we should not be.

    So why is abortion suddenly magically different from everything else we do with our medical science?



    And aborting a fetus is aborting a fetus.

    It is not us that is missing the distinction here.


    Inventing new dehumanising terms is often successful at making certain people feel ok about the ending of human life (I know, I know, what relevance does that comment have here, in this dicussion about the "termination" of a "foetus".

    We have regular cases in this country where courts award millions/tens of millions of euros to artificially extend the life of people with severe brain damage. The mainstream media/political organisations are strongly against the death penalty for even the most hideous crimes, all because of the supposed value of all human life, something that for some reason doesn't apply in the case of a healthy "foetus", not because it isn't human life, but because of a handful of hypocritical convenient justifications and some calculatied replacement of terms like "killing" and "human" with "foetus" and "termination".


  • #469
    SuperRabbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 698 ✭✭✭SuperRabbit


    elusiveoctopus wrote: »
    "It was thought the baby had Trisomy18, also known as Edwards Syndrome, but a series of genetic tests later found that was not the case."

    Maybe they should confirm the child had the disease before acting on it.


    " The rapid test can give a false positive. “That’s why it is necessary to look at the total picture. If there is no ultrasound abnormality most laboratories recommend to wait for the full two weeks,” he explained.
    “But some patients are not prepared to wait the two weeks and want to continue to termination. Generally we recommend that they get the total picture,” he added."

    It sounds like something that was/is completely avoidable, it's not clear if the parents didn't listen to advice or if they weren't given the advice they should have been given according to this.

    You guys are all debating abortion now instead of talking about this tragedy, which happened because someone along the way didn't do what they were supposed to do. Lots of people die when doctors make mistakes, it doesn't mean medicine should be banned.


  • #470
    mvl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Like i said, I don;t know much about the case. But the hospital has no right to block a termination until tests come back. The first test came back and the couple opted for termination. That's all the hospital needs to know. The hospital should advise the couple that the other tests could reveal new information but that doesn't mean the hospital should refuse the termination.
    Actually I thought the hospital accepts terminations after 12 weeks when certain conditions are met - is this not correct ?
    But assuming this was a wanted pregnancy, I am trying to find out what actor with medical background could have guided them for a different outcome, or could have been involved in the sign off of this termination. The process could seek improvements from failures like this.

    And another thing I would hope someone who has medical background or has been through this recently can enlighten me: why/when is CVS used instead of amniocentesis here ?
    - as it sounds to me (but I'm not medical nor I looked into this for more than 10 years) CVS has more risks of miscarriage than amniocentesis, and possibly is less accurate (being done too early).


  • #471
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Exactly. And I think the push to normalise this is only going to make this worse.

    Seriously, you know women who have had an abortion. You just don’t know it. It’s already normalised and has been for years. But now women can get proper aftercare afterwards near their homes. Yay! The argument over whether an abortion is a medical procedure or not is valid. However, complications and aftercare are most definitely medical in nature.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    i dont think anyone ever claimed that the pro choice position was one devoid of hypocrisy. We indulge in hypocrisy in just about every facet of life.

    Good honest observation . . being hypocritical about abortion doesn't make hypocrisy and abortion ok though. Two wrongs don't make a right.


  • #473
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Seriously, you know women who have had an abortion. You just don’t know it. It’s already normalised and has been for years. But now women can get proper aftercare afterwards near their homes. Yay!

    I do know women who have had abortions. Some quite closely. Guilt is the main aftereffect.


  • #474
    Muzzymor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36 ✭Muzzymor


    SuperRabbit wrote: »

    You guys are all debating abortion now instead of talking about this tragedy, which happened because someone along the way didn't do what they were supposed to do. Lots of people die when doctors make mistakes, it doesn't mean medicine should be banned.


    This is only a "tragedy" if you believe abortion is the killing of a human.

    On the other hand, if we're discussing the termination of a non-setient foetus/clump of cells, it's considerably less tragic, wouldn't you agree.

    How about a bit of moral consistency, something is either tragic or it isn't. It doesn't become either tragic or completely non-tragic and fine simply based on whether or not the mother in question wanted the child.


  • #475
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Not really

    Yes they are.

    Recommendation - a proposal as to the best course of action.

    Suggestion - an idea or plan put forward for consideration.


  • #476
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Muzzymor wrote: »
    This is only a "tragedy" if you believe abortion is the killing of a human.

    On the other hand, if we're discussing the termination of a non-setient foetus/clump of cells, it's considerably less tragic, wouldn't you agree.

    How about a bit of moral consistency, something is either tragic or it isn't. It doesn't become either tragic or completely non-tragic and fine simply based on whether or not the mother in question wanted the child.

    Is a 6 month old foetus who is moving and burping and sleeping and dreaming sentient?


  • #477
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    stefanovich wrote: »
    I do know women who have had abortions. Some quite closely. Guilt is the main aftereffect.

    That is the great thing about anecdote, mine is as good as yours. And I know several people who accessed abortion too. Guilt is entirely absent in all of them.

    Go figure huh.
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    Inventing new dehumanising terms is often successful at making certain people feel ok about the ending of human life

    Who is inventing new ones? I propose we stick to the old ones, but work harder at ensuring people use them CORRECTLY.

    I can not "dehumanise" that which people have utterly failed to warrant the "Humanisation" of in the first place.

    See the problem is, and it is inconvenient to the average anti choice campaigner.... I know all the different meanings the word "Human" has, and in what contexts. So I spot when people use one definition in the false context.
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    all because of the supposed value of all human life, something that for some reason doesn't apply in the case of a healthy "foetus"

    The "for some reason" is feigning an ignorance I am not sure I believe you actually suffer from. There is a reason, and it is quite a clear one. I can explain it to you however, if you deign to ask. You will find it not at all complex to understand. But again you will find it comes down to a distinction between different meanings of the word "human". Some of which apply to a fetus, and some of which do not.

    So shall we have at it, or would you prefer to continue to feign ignorance?


  • #478
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Muzzymor wrote: »
    Inventing new dehumanising terms is often successful at making certain people feel ok about the ending of human life (I know, I know, what relevance does that comment have here, in this dicussion about the "termination" of a "foetus".

    We have regular cases in this country where courts award millions/tens of millions of euros to artificially extend the life of people with severe brain damage. The mainstream media/political organisations are strongly against the death penalty for even the most hideous crimes, all because of the supposed value of all human life, something that for some reason doesn't apply in the case of a healthy "foetus", not because it isn't human life, but because of a handful of hypocritical convenient justifications and some calculatied replacement of terms like "killing" and "human" with "foetus" and "termination".

    Ironically foetus is not some obscure medical term , but simply latin for offspring / little one.


  • #479
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    It's not, and yes most of your comments indicate you have no idea......

    Was it signed off by 2 doctors as per the law?
    If so then these doctors may have a case to answer.


  • #480
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    I don't know all the details of this case and none of us do. But the misdiagnosis is not necessarily due to malpractice or a mistake it could be limitations in the test.
    Even if a test competently carried out had 99.9% accuracy that is still 1 in a thousand getting the wrong result.
    From basic reading of this case it seems the first test was positive but not conclusive and the parents acted on this.
    So long as they were fully informed that was their choice.
    Imagine if you were told there was a 99% chance of a FFA that might be enough to seek a termination for many people.
    It is tragic but too early to be pointing blame at either medics or parents.
    For staunch pro life people abortion in the case of ffa is still wrong so they will use this to justify their stance. But there is always the chance of misdiagnosis, whether due to human error or limitations in the test. No one claimed otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Muzzymor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36 ✭Muzzymor


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Is a 6 month old foetus who is moving and burping and sleeping and dreaming sentient?

    I don't buy into the "sentience" argument as a justification
    for abortion in the first place.
    There are people who are so massively brain damaged that they will never be "sentient" again but we keep them alive in hospitals at great cost or at home with 5 full time carers and all the rest. There are "foetus's" who will soon be healthy fully sentient humans on the condition that someone doesn't kill them, but people value this life far less than the former case/not at all. We don't pull the plug on people who are in temporary coma's etc, but the fact that feotus won't be sentient for another few weeks etc seems to make killing it ok for most Irish people.


Advertisement