Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

kaymin · 18-05-2019 4:45pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

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.

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?

Having seen the ultrasound image and videos of my baby boy at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc I don't need someone else to tell me when there is or is not another human life growing.

People choose to believe what they want despite what is in front of them because it is convenient to their lifestyle choices.

18-05-2019 4:46pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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

Doesn't seem like they have a case to answer.

Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018
S.11: Condition likely to lead to death of foetus

(1) A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where 2 medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth.

This section provides for reasonable error. I'd say a certainty of 99.9% or higher constitutes a reasonable certainty, so there's almost no prospect of the doctors involved being prosecuted.

Nevertheless, the test for civil liability is completely different.

uptherebels · 18-05-2019 4:48pm

Muzzymor wrote: »

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.

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

stefanovich · 18-05-2019 4:49pm

uptherebels wrote: »

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

At what age does the foetus become sentient? After it is born? After it's heart starts beating?

Nobelium · 18-05-2019 4:50pm

uptherebels wrote: »

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

what society are you claiming to represent ?

amcalester · 18-05-2019 4:51pm

kaymin wrote: »

Having seen the ultrasound image and videos of my baby boy at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc I don't need someone else to tell me when there is or is not another human life growing.

People choose to believe what they want despite what is in front of them because it is convenient to their lifestyle choices.

What did the ultrasound show at 4 weeks?

joe40 · 18-05-2019 4:51pm

stefanovich wrote: »

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

If an act is an abomination, then quite clearly the person carrying out the act is an abomination.
If you think an abortion is murder then anyone having an abortion or any doctor performing one should be in jail.
At least have consistency in your opinions.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 18-05-2019 4:51pm

stefanovich wrote: »

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

Yes, some will feel guilt. But they knew that could happen when they made the decision. Many of us carry around guilt all our lives for things we have done. I feel guilty for not get a second opinion when a nearing-retirement doctor hand-waved away 28 year old me when I turned up with a symptom that I later discovered should have earned me an urgent referral to the breast clinic at the nearest hospital. I’m now paying for that with a death sentence. Don’t talk to me about guilt. Guilt is likely only one of many emotions they feel about their decision, same as me.

Muzzymor · 18-05-2019 4:52pm

uptherebels wrote: »

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

Yes they are extremely different, the harsh truth is that one of them (the foetus) has all the potential in the world as long as we don't kill it and the other has zero potential for sentience or "a life" regardless of however many millions of euros are spent on keeping them alive.

Personally I don't think killing either is ok.

Nobelium · 18-05-2019 4:52pm

stefanovich wrote: »

At what age does the foetus become sentient? After it is born? After it's heart starts beating?

whenever they or they relatives can start sueing you apparently . . .

ToBeFrank123 · 18-05-2019 4:54pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Doesn't seem like it

Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018
S.11: Condition likely to lead to death of foetus

This section provides for reasonable error. I'd say a certainty of 99.9% or higher constitutes a reasonable certainty, so there's almost no prospect of the doctors involved being prosecuted.

Nevertheless, the test for civil liability is completely different.

This to me is key. If 2 doctors signed off they have a case to answer as they are potentially a danger to others and probably shouldn't be practising. If 2 doctors didn't sign off then whoever carried out the abortion broke the law if the abortion happened in Ireland.

And running a single test no matter how allegedly accurate always carries risks. At minimum 2 tests should be required.

kaymin · 18-05-2019 4:57pm

amcalester wrote: »

What did the ultrasound show at 4 weeks?

Gestational sac, heartbeat at ~ 1 month.

Infini · 18-05-2019 4:58pm

Anteayer wrote: »

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.

The simple truth is there's those on the "pro-life/pro-birth" side whatever you want to call it who simply refuse to accept the decision of the majority on this and will go pushing the same tired argument over and over endlessly because they simply refuse to stop meddling in other people's lives on this issue. It's like whats happening in Alabama this is purely down to one thing: Control of other people's live and nothing else. It's the choice of the mother and father involved and noone else's and everyone else needs to butt out as they're not helping only interfering where they have no business doing so.

Abortion is a medical issue it's up to the parent's to make these decisions and the parents alone without interference or coercion from any other group. Noone looks for this lightly and even in this case it was a mistake only happening because initial test's showed the potential life was to be crippled with a fatal development.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-05-2019 4:59pm

kaymin wrote: »

Having seen the ultrasound image and videos of my baby boy at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc I don't need someone else to tell me when there is or is not another human life growing.

Ermmmmm ok. What has this to do with me given I never told anyone "when there is or is not another human life growing."?????

kaymin wrote: »

People choose to believe what they want despite what is in front of them because it is convenient to their lifestyle choices.

You will have to take it up with "people" then as you are not describing me here. I do not choose what I believe. The evidence, argument, data and reasoning offered for a position dictates to me what I believe, and why.

amcalester · 18-05-2019 4:59pm

kaymin wrote: »

Gestational sac, heartbeat at ~ 1 month.

There’s no heartbeat at 4 weeks.

Why lie?

18-05-2019 4:59pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This to me is key. If 2 doctors signed off they have a case to answer as they are potentially a danger to others

There is absolutely no reason to believe that, and it's unfair on the doctors involved to imply such a thing. The rapid test has an accuracy rate in the order of 99.9%

And running a single test no matter how allegedly accurate always carries risks. At minimum 2 tests should be required.

2 tests did produce a positive result for Edwards' Syndrome. It was the third test, after the termination occurred, which was negative.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-05-2019 5:02pm

stefanovich wrote: »

At what age does the foetus become sentient? After it is born? After it's heart starts beating?

A good question and we have no 100% clear answer to it. Thankfully we do not need one. Our best knowledge as far as I know is that we can begin to SUSPECT it might be sentient somewhere after week 26.

What we do know however is there is ZERO reason to suspect a fetus sentient from 0 weeks to periods into the 20 weeks.

What we also know is that CHOICE based abortion almost always happen (over 96%) by weeks 16. In fact over 92% by week 12. Regardless of whether abortion in the jurisdiction is illegal, legal with cut offs, or legal with no cut offs.

So if you hear of someone opting out of choice for an abortion, there is pretty much NO reason to think they are killing a remotely sentient agent. Something you and I can not say about the last steak we ate in fact.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-05-2019 5:03pm

Muzzymor wrote: »

I don't buy into the "sentience" argument as a justification for abortion in the first place.

Then you demonstrate that you do not understand it because it is not a "justification" for abortion at all. It is an argument that shows that there is nothing that requires "justification" in the first place.

Muzzymor wrote: »

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.

Citations please. Not of anyone brain damaged, but specifically of the scenarios you describe where we know they will "never be sentient again".

Muzzymor wrote: »

There are "foetus's" who will soon be healthy fully sentient humans

The fact you say they will SOON BE means you also acknowledge and happily admit they are not one NOW. Which is..... my point. So thanks for making it for me.

Muzzymor wrote: »

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.

And as I said the explanation for that is clear, even if you wish to feign ignorance about it.

Muzzymor · 18-05-2019 5:08pm

Infini wrote: »

The simple truth is there's those on the "pro-life/pro-birth" side whatever you want to call it who simply refuse to accept the decision of the majority on this and will go pushing the same tired argument over and over endlessly because they simply refuse to stop meddling in other people's lives on this issue. It's like whats happening in Alabama this is purely down to one thing: Control of other people's live and nothing else. It's the choice of the mother and father involved and noone else's and everyone else needs to butt out as they're not helping only interfering where they have no business doing so.

Abortion is a medical issue it's up to the parent's to make these decisions and the parents alone without interference or coercion from any other group. Noone looks for this lightly and even in this case it was a mistake only happening because initial test's showed the potential life was to be crippled with a fatal development.

Not really. I'd say the people who want to make ending a life ok are the ones who are meddling with the lives of other humans

If the parents wanted to have themselves aborted I'd be libertarian enough to say that's their choice/right to choose what to do with their own existence, but they don't want to end their own life, they want to end someone else's, someone who didn't decide they wanted their life to be snuffed out before they were born.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-05-2019 5:11pm

Muzzymor wrote: »

Not really. I'd say the people who want to make ending a life ok are the ones who are meddling with the lives of other humans

To be fair WHATEVER decision we make in our democracies about our position on abortion in any given jurisdiction is going to be "meddling in the lives of other humans". So there is no justifiable pissing contest to be had there.

The real question is that while meddling, is there any moral or ethical argument for curtailing the choices, freedoms and well being of actual human sentient PEOPLE, in deference to something that is not, and has not, ever been sentient?

Muzzymor wrote: »

but they don't want to end their own life, they want to end someone else's, someone who didn't decide they wanted their life to be snuffed out before they were born.

You are projecting. They are killing a someTHING there not a someONE.

It is not that they did or did not "decide" they want their life ended. They do not even have the capacities or faculties relevant to the concept of "decision" in the first place.

You are projecting YOUR faculties of sentience and decision making onto a living biological form that lacks them entirely, and acting like this is then morally relevant. You could make the same error with a rock and it would be no less a nonsense.

dartboardio · 18-05-2019 5:13pm

Shame on the family, not for aborting, that part is fine especially with the extremely high risk of fatal abnormalities.

Shame on that family for trying to make a case out of something they agreed to do.

Idiots. Should have gotten 100s of tests done if they wanted to know for certain there would be a ten percent chance that it infact would be a healthy baby.

They've really made themselves look like compo claimers, fools

Stop arguing over yer morals in relation to abortion, we had that conversation almost a year ago and majority of the country voted in favour, so just face it.

The real question here is what ye think of a family suing professionals for giving them advice and warning them if they go ahead with pregnancy there baby will most likely be unable to survive or have a life of serious abnormalities etc, yet the family agreed, knowing nothing is ever 100% and there can always be a slight chance this may not be the case, thats the whole meaning of 'HIGH RISK'

SusieBlue · 18-05-2019 5:19pm

stefanovich wrote: »

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

Some people feeling guilt is not a good enough reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

A study done on one thousand Irish women who had procured abortions reported their most common feeling in the aftermath of their abortions to be ‘gratitude and relielf’.
98% of women surveyed said they had no regrets and would recommend the procedure to women in similar circumstances.
97% said they felt they had made the right choice.

You can read it for yourself here, if you wish.

https://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-study-3030940-Oct2016/?amp=1

dartboardio · 18-05-2019 5:21pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Some people feeling guilt is not a good enough reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

A study done on one thousand Irish women who had procured abortions reported their most common feeling in the aftermath of their abortions to be ‘gratitude and relielf’.
98% of women surveyed said they had no regrets and would recommend the procedure to women in similar circumstances.
97% said they felt they had made the right choice.

You can read it for yourself here, if you wish.

https://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-study-3030940-Oct2016/?amp=1

As a woman who had an abortion a couple of years ago, i also felt relief. Not to say any other woman might feel that. But there you go.

Muzzymor · 18-05-2019 5:24pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To be fair WHATEVER decision we make in our democracies about our position on abortion in any given jurisdiction is going to be "meddling in the lives of other humans". So there is no justifiable pissing contest to be had there.

The real question is that while meddling, is there any moral or ethical argument for curtailing the choices, freedoms and well being of actual human sentient PEOPLE, in deference to something that is not, and has not, ever been sentient?

You are projecting. They are killing a someTHING there not a someONE.

It is not that they did or did not "decide" they want their life ended. They do not even have the capacities or faculties relevant to the concept of "decision" in the first place.

You are projecting YOUR faculties of sentience and decision making onto a living biological form that lacks them entirely, and acting like this is then morally relevant. You could make the same error with a rock and it would be no less a nonsense.

Clearly the fundamental ethical disagreement here is about whether you believe that just because a "foetus" doesn't have sentience right now it's ok to kill it,despite the fact that if you don't kill it it's essentially guaranteed to be sentient a couple of weeks later. I'm not interested in getting into a semantic argument with you. We'll never meet in the middle because there is no middle

I'm 100% athiest and the only thing I can think is that the difference must come down to how one thinks about time/one's own existence etc. I believe that I was alive when I was a foetus and I believe aborted foetus's would be just as alive as I am now if people didn't kill them. You can call that projecting, I'll call it a belief that intentionally ending an already developing human life is wrong.

kaymin · 18-05-2019 5:27pm

amcalester wrote: »

There’s no heartbeat at 4 weeks.

Why lie?

Lol. Not that it matters since you don't seem open minded.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/s1001602/your-pregnancy-at-5-weeks

18-05-2019 5:30pm

kaymin wrote: »

Lol. Not that it matters since you don't seem open minded.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/s1001602/your-pregnancy-at-5-weeks

Oh God what is the relevance of the heart? That organ is about as vital as its bladder or its arse, tbqh.

What's with this near-mystical obsession with the foetal heartbeat?

Edit: this question applies as much to pro-choicers as to anti-choicers. The heart is not the seat of the soul, regardless of what was said in Primary School Religion class.

Boggles · 18-05-2019 5:31pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

98% of women surveyed said they had no regrets

I don't think they did, I can't find that question asked anywhere in the survey.

Link?

Goldengirl · 18-05-2019 5:32pm

Nobelium wrote: »

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

That is your opinion but not that of the majority who voted for repeal and to legalise abortion.
That you think it is wrong is irrelevant therefore.
This is a tragedy because this foetus would have been a wanted baby, it is always a tragedy for couples with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality whether the pregnancy goes to term or not . However aborting an unwanted foetus is not a tragedy, because it is UNWANTED and no matter how you much you protest about it, this discussion has been had, we all voted, and abortion is now legal .

kaymin · 18-05-2019 5:33pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ermmmmm ok. What has this to do with me given I never told anyone "when there is or is not another human life growing."?????

You will have to take it up with "people" then as you are not describing me here. I do not choose what I believe. The evidence, argument, data and reasoning offered for a position dictates to me what I believe, and why.

You said:
'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.'

For every reason you give, a counter argument can be given. The 'evidence' as you put it is not objective and really is someone's opinion of when a fetus becomes human.

amcalester · 18-05-2019 5:33pm

kaymin wrote: »

Lol. Not that it matters since you don't seem open minded.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/s1001602/your-pregnancy-at-5-weeks

You said 4 weeks, then changed to ~ 1 month and now it’s 5 weeks.

Kinda seems like you’re changing your story to suit a narrative.

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments