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…2627293132…55

Comments

  • Options
    #842
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I live in Ireland , so thanks for the NHS link but I'll ignore it if it's all the same to you. ;-)

    You can check the HSE website if you like, it's just a clone of the NHS one.


  • Options
    #843
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cournioni wrote: »
    Everything I am saying is on topic, you mightn’t like it but then boards isn’t meant to be an echo chamber.

    You on the other hand shouldn’t be back seat modding    .
    Looks like backseat modding to me.


  • Options
    #844
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    stefanovich wrote:
    That's not a fact. See my post above.


    In your opinion, using the word baby does not make it so . At 15 weeks it is not a viable baby.


  • Options
    #845
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    STB. wrote: »
    No. Do it yourself. The sentence should have given all the clues you needed.





    You can make as many condescending verbals as you wish, just don't pretend to a victim here sunshine. Like I said earlier its like talking to a simpleton (with all due respect to simpletons). You achieved what you set out to do, which was to take this off track.

    Have you anything other than abuse to offer?
    You have referred to me as a simpleton three times, I understand moderation isn't always available at all times and I previously stated that I wouldn't respond to you from the first time you said it but I'm not willing to allow somebody who is handing out abuse to take the moral high ground when they have no business there.

    I have no idea what post your talking about, you raised it so you can post it here.

    Could you answer the question I asked previously, if the vote last year had been no should the repeal movement have respected the vote and not raised the issue again?


  • Options
    #846
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    stefanovich wrote:
    You can check the HSE website if you like, it's just a clone of the NHS one.


    I don't need to as I don't accept that a 15 week old foetus is a baby, it has the potential to develop into one though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #847
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Nobelium wrote: »
    Again you haven't . . you claimed several times now to know an entire societies view . . who exactly elected you to be spokesperson for an entire society ?
    You seem to have some comprehension issues.

    Society views someone who is born but has suffered a brain injury differently to a foetus that that hasn't gained sentience yet. This is evident by societies attitudes towards and the laws currently in place regarding such situations.
    I can't simplify this explanation anymore.

    Like I have asked, if you believe that the above is wrong please highlight how.


  • Options
    #848
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,087 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Mr.H wrote: »
    What are you blubbering about?

    Where did i say we should ban anything?

    I am merely saying that this is a horrible story and yes it wouldnt have happened if the vote went the other way. I am not saying we should reverse that decision. We need to improve procedure and not let things like this happen again.

    You must know nothing about babies. Let me give you an example. Children are born without neck control. For the most part. Some kids get control when they are 3/4 months old. My son had full neck control by week 1. He was also born at 36 weeks as oppose to 40. He was also 10ibs when he was born at 36 weeks. Most babies are around half that when they go full term (38-40 weeks). At 21 weeks the baby you found on wiki was a pound. At 20 weeks my little guy was almost 2 pounds. At 20 weeks!! You either get that because youve experienced all this or you dont and have no clue what i mean. All babies are different sizes. Some will be bigger than others. Some smaller. The size very much impacts their ability to survive a premature birth.

    So you can deflect all the attention away from the story that you want. But the 8th would have saved this healthy baby.
    I've had three children, so you can drop the patronising tone. I'd say I have a lot more personal experience of it than you, unless you're not really a Mr. But I bet you are.

    The claim that the 8th "would have saved" this baby is nonsense.
    Unless you think women didn't travel for terminations for FFA when the 8th was in force - they did.

    And BTW, you've no idea how much your baby actually weighed at 20 weeks, because he wasn't born. It's only extrapolation from scans and very often wrong, as I know from experience.

    But the poster I was replying to had claimed that babies had survived at 13 weeks gestation. Why don't you try conferring some of your "knowledge" on someone who actually needs it? 13 weeks?? And my post was the one you objected to!


  • Options
    #849
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    So do you feel a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will to satisfy your morals,regardless if her situation?
    A baby shouldn’t be denied their life and it shouldn’t be met with a cruel death because circumstances aren’t ideal.


  • Options
    #850
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,087 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Looks like backseat modding to me.

    Seems like mods from other sections of boards have rights that mere mortals don't. They can call 2/3 of the population insane for instance. And also tell women they are killing defenceless babies when they have a termination.


  • Options
    #851
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    cournioni wrote:
    A baby shouldn’t be denied their life and it shouldn’t be met with a cruel death because circumstances aren’t ideal.

    That's a yes, isn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #852
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Well that is completely false. There is a small but real chance that a baby born before 20 weeks can live. In fact the youngest born was only 13 weeks which is 2 weeks younger than the one here.

    Have you any kids? You dont need to answer as it is a personal question. But one that you can think about yourself. Have you been for a 9 week scan, 12 week scan, 15 week scan, 20 week scan and so on. If you have then you do see when they start to form. I have a scan from 15 weeks and while it us blurry you can actually see some detail of my son in it. Its crazy how he was defined so early on and looks the exact same. The reason i ask is because quiet often people talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about and purely because its popular opinion.

    Yes forced. The couple. Not just the woman, were told that their child would likely die very early on if it were born. The option was to go through with pregnancy and leave their child suffer for what little life they had, or have an abortion. Yes that is forcing someones decision. They were given the wrong information and if the laws didnt change they would have not been given the option. A healthy baby would have lived.

    I do have kids, not that it's any of your business.

    Have you ever been pregnant? The reason I ask is because quite often men talk about stuff they have absolutely no clue about what it's like to experience purely because they think they can control what women do.

    It's not forcing anyone's decision. They could have kept going with the pregnancy but they CHOSE not to, which is the right that we, the people, gave them.


  • Options
    #853
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    cournioni wrote:
    A baby shouldn’t be denied their life and it shouldn’t be met with a cruel death because circumstances aren’t ideal.


    I'll ask you again, should a woman be forced to remain pregnant against her regardless if her situation? If you can't/won't answer that's fine. Another poster suggested they should be incarcerated into a mental health facility and forced to carry to term. Would you agree?


  • Options
    #854
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Mr.H wrote: »
    What are you blubbering about?

    Where did i say we should ban anything?

    I am merely saying that this is a horrible story and yes it wouldnt have happened if the vote went the other way. I am not saying we should reverse that decision. We need to improve procedure and not let things like this happen again.

    You must know nothing about babies. Let me give you an example. Children are born without neck control. For the most part. Some kids get control when they are 3/4 months old. My son had full neck control by week 1. He was also born at 36 weeks as oppose to 40. He was also 10ibs when he was born at 36 weeks. Most babies are around half that when they go full term (38-40 weeks). At 21 weeks the baby you found on wiki was a pound. At 20 weeks my little guy was almost 2 pounds. At 20 weeks!! You either get that because youve experienced all this or you dont and have no clue what i mean. All babies are different sizes. Some will be bigger than others. Some smaller. The size very much impacts their ability to survive a premature birth.

    So you can deflect all the attention away from the story that you want. But the 8th would have saved this healthy baby.

    No it wouldnt.


  • Options
    #855
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I'll ask you again, should a woman be forced to remain pregnant against her regardless if her situation?
    I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?


  • Options
    #856
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    nullzero wrote: »

    Could you answer the question I asked previously, if the vote last year had been no should the repeal movement have respected the vote and not raised the issue again?


    You want me to answer a hypothetical question ?

    The previous contentious amendment that previously stood between 1983 and 2018 ? Is that not respect ?

    What I can answer is one posing the question - Did the No side respect the decision of the electorate. No they didn't. They immediately challenged it in the Courts in an attempt to frustrate the democratic process. We will always have people who refuse to accept the decisions, like this guy>
    cournioni wrote: »
    I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

    The only thing unfortunate is your refusal to accept the democratic vote. You will have to get over that, especially in your black and white world.


  • Options
    #857
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    cournioni wrote: »
    I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

    Nice to see you finally admit that you want to control women.


  • Options
    #858
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    cournioni wrote:
    I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?


    You didn't you side stepped the question. So the woman's rights are secondary to the foetus, thanks for confirming. Thankfully your attitude exists in the minority and rightly so. Women are not brood mares.


  • Options
    #859
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    STB. wrote: »
    You want me to answer a hypothetical question ?


    The previous contentious ammendment that previously stood between 1983 and 2018 ? Is that not respect ?



    What I can answer is did the No side respect the decision of the electorate. No they didn't. They immediately challenged in the Courts in an attempt to frustrate the democratic process.

    The 1983 referendum passed with almost 70% of the vote. It wasn't contentious at the time, although I didn't agree with it.

    You are saying that No campaigners shouldn't have a voice whilst making statements about how things should work in a democracy. This shows a level of cognitive dissonance that is frankly comical.

    So yes I would like you to answer the simple question I asked you. And if you could answer without calling me a simpleton I'd be much obliged.


  • Options
    #860
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cournioni wrote: »
    I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?
    You are walking through a deserted woodland. It is the middle of the night, and the area is very derelict. A cabin is on fire.

    You run inside to see if there is anybody to save. There are two cots. To your left, one cot contains a petri dish with a label that says 'embryo'. To the right, in another cot, there is a totally unconscious newborn baby.

    You only have time to save one, and presumably you choose the actual baby.

    Why?


  • Options
    #861
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I'll ask you again, should a woman be forced to remain pregnant against her regardless if her situation? If you can't/won't answer that's fine. Another poster suggested they should be incarcerated into a mental health facility and forced to carry to term. Would you agree?

    Except that we do already force a woman to remain pregnant after 12 weeks whether she likes it or now. I know you will probably say she has time to abort before the 12 weeks but after all her situation in life could utterly change at week 13 or after when according to you it is still not a baby. The vote probably wouldn't have carried if we didn't impose this force on women after 12 weeks because the general feeling was that the people would not stomach seeing a healthy baby aborted anything after 12 weeks regardless of the woman. So while you seem hell bent on getting someone to say forcing a woman to remain pregnant is terrible, we still do it even after the referendum all the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #862
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Nice to see you finally admit that you want to control women.
    Only when it comes to women wanting to kill their unborn.


  • Options
    #863
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    cournioni wrote: »
    Only when it comes to women wanting to kill their unborn.

    Nah, you don’t give a **** about the babies when they’re born, so don’t pretend to give a **** when they’re unborn.

    This is all a control mechanism because you don’t agree with a woman making a choice for herself. Stupid wimmins.


  • Options
    #864
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Mrsmum wrote:
    Except that we do already force a woman to remain pregnant after 12 weeks whether she likes it or now. I know you will probably say she has time to abort before the 12 weeks but after all her situation in life could utterly change at week 13 or after when according to you it is still not a baby. The vote probably wouldn't have carried if we didn't impose this force on women after 12 weeks because the general feeling was that the people would not stomach seeing a healthy baby aborted anything after 12 weeks regardless of the woman. So while you seem hell bent on getting someone to say forcing a woman to remain pregnant is terrible, we still do it even after the referendum all the same.


    We don't as the right to travel exists, most also know the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.
    I'm not hell bent on forcing anything on anyone, you seem to be confusing me with another poster.;-)


  • Options
    #865
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    nullzero wrote: »
    The 1983 referendum passed with almost 70% of the vote. It wasn't contentious at the time, although I didn't agree with it.


    67% (Just like the 2018 vote was to overturn it)

    It was contentious at the time as it did not recognise the rights of the mother.
    nullzero wrote: »
    You are saying that No campaigners shouldn't have a voice whilst making statements about how things should work in a democracy. This shows a level of cognitive dissonance that is frankly comical.

    So yes I would like you to answer the simple question I asked you. And if you could answer without calling me a simpleton I'd be much obliged.

    What I am saying is that the democratic electorate voted on it. That has changed the constitution on abortion. There is nothing left to negotiate, but you could have discerned that by reading my original posts.

    Have a bit of respect. You're not in the amateur debating forum now.


  • Options
    #866
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    cournioni wrote: »
    My no vote didn’t contribute to what we are discussing here. Killing a defenseless baby shouldn’t be on the cards, period.

    That’s irrelevant. Your No vote perpetuated the pain and suffering of people having a crisis. You happily took the choice away from people whose circumstances you don’t know and don’t understand, just because it’s not something you personally disagree with.

    You can’t proudly claim that your vote would have saved this baby when it would have added to the trauma of thousands of distressed women and couples.


  • Options
    #867
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Ill see if i can find the link later. It was a documentary i was watching. I think the couple where australian. The documentary was nothing to do with the baby. It was about frakking companies destroying small towns. They were saying the baby being born that premature was a reaction to the chemicals etc. Im out and about at the moment with the little one and ill have more time later if your genuinely interested.

    But if not then dont get blinded by my obvious facetious point. The statement i replied to was "a woman can choose to do what she wants with her body". Its not as simple as that. That one line means a woman can have an abortion up to the second before birth. The sentence is too open ended. Therefore an invalid opinion. I agree with abortion. I voted for it ffs. But i also believe in science and my own experience of seeing how early my unborn son started to develope.

    I’ve spent the last hour looking online and can find nothing of the sort.
    Babies at that gestation don’t even have fully developed organs yet, let alone lungs, they cannot survive when born at 13 weeks.
    Even when babies are born just 4 weeks early, they usually need steroids to help the lungs mature because they can’t breathe on their own.

    I think they must have said 13 weeks premature which would be 27 weeks gestation. I don’t believe that a baby born at 13 weeks would be developed enough to survive.
    Especially considering the earliest recorded birth is 21 weeks, held by a Canadian baby.


  • Options
    #868
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    We don't as the right to travel exists, most also know the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.
    I'm not hell bent on forcing anything on anyone, you seem to be confusing me with another poster.;-)

    It doesn't matter that the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Circumstances can just as easily change thereafter and at the very least we still force her to travel for abortion. It seems to me we are quite comfortable with 'force' when it suits.


  • Options
    #869
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    STB. wrote: »
    67% (Just like the 2018 vote was to overturn it)

    It was contentious at the time as it did not recognise the rights of the mother.



    What I am saying is that the democratic electorate voted on it. That has changed the constitution on abortion. There is nothing left to negotiate, but you could have discerned that by reading my original posts.

    Have a bit of respect. You're not in the amateur debating forum now.

    Are you seriously telling me to have a bit of respect? You who has referred to me as a simpleton three times already?

    It's hilarious that you would even attempt to take the moral high ground here after your behaviour on this thread.

    Yet again, cognitive dissonance and you still haven't addressed the question properly.


  • Options
    #870
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    It doesn't matter that the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Circumstances can just as easily change thereafter and at the very least we still force her to travel for abortion. It seems to me we are quite comfortable with 'force' when it suits.

    I agree


    Hopefully the 12 week limit is moved out soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #871
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    nullzero wrote: »
    Are you seriously telling me to have a bit of respect?


    Yes.


    For yourself and other poster please.


Advertisement