Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

....... wrote: »

Again, what happened is nothing to do with our health service since repeal.

Prior to repeal this couple would have gone to the UK for an abortion.

Im curious to understand why you refuse to see this?

I understood that the couple only sought an abortion due to the child being mis-diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality.

....... wrote: »

Indeed.

This would have equally been the case pre-repeal.

Except they would have sought the abortion in the UK.

Do you understand this? Repeal has absolutely zero impact in this case.

Yes I understand this. I'm upset that our health service failed these people with such tragic results, Do you understand this ?
Just because mis-diagnosis happens doesn't mean I should just shut up on a message board. Do you understand this?

SexBobomb wrote: »

Yes I understand this. I'm upset that our health service failed these people with such tragic results, Do you understand this ?
Just because mis-diagnosis happens doesn't mean I should just shut up on a message board. Do you understand this?

you are putting it forward as a failing brought about as a result of the decision to repeal. Whether we voted to repeal or not this would still have happened and the couple would have been in a worse position that they were as they would have had to travel for their abortion.

SexBobomb wrote: »

Im talking about the topic and reacting to others comments being made, I don't think I should have to start every comment outlining the history of the topic and everything Im for and against so I can have an opinion.
I was on the fence and voted to repeal but I want it to be safe but given the recent stories coming out, I question our health services ability.

I'll decide what I choose to focus on thanks, without your permission.

The history is very relevant, because you are implying something like this wasn't possible pre-repeal and that simply isn't true.
It would have happened, just not here. They would have had the added trauma of having to travel to the UK.

SexBobomb wrote: »

Still would have happened yes, a sad truth. Maybe I expressed myself badly/too emotively after reading a comment. I was trying to convey I was on the fence like a lot of people during the campaign and stories like this with an attitude of hey gotta break a few eggs might have swayed peoples votes, who knows ? would it have swayed mine, I don't know really. Ill keep myself quiet next time

there is no reason for this tragedy to have swayed your decision on repeal. there is no link between the two.

....... wrote: »

If you could dial back the hate spewing for a minute to realise this, or put yourself in the shoes of someone who is suffering a crisis pregnancy you might have more empathy for real living sentient people.

SusieBlue wrote: »

You don't have to like it but you should afford others the respect you'd expect yourself when it regards private medical matters.

Do you guys think he's remotely likely to take your advice on board?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you guys think he's remotely likely to take your advice on board?

Probably not but preaching tolerance is more likely to work than trying to convince him to change his opinion on the matter.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Probably not but preaching tolerance is more likely to work than trying to convince him to change his opinion on the matter.

Well given that he made this comment on the case under discussion

Hardcharger wrote: »

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

I find it hard to see that he is any more likely to accede to what you are saying about respect regarding private medical matters than he is about the issue of abortion per se. I just don't see the point in engaging with this sort of poster on any level.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Again I should point out I voted yes, but think there is very dubious morality here. Mentioning 'wants', no way 'wants' are more important that a 'gestated fetus'. That's genuinely appalling.

Thank you firstly for simply ignoring my first post reply to you. It is always nice to make an effort and not have it returned. I guess.

To the point though, I am not sure what your issue is with the word "wants" but perhaps I can frame it in completely different language just to pre-empt the possibility of a battle of pedantic language debate between you and any interlocutor.

I believe morality is in the business of ensuring the well being of sentient agents. If you think I am wrong in this please let me know how and why!

"Wants" is merely a simple word to express that a sentient agent is in play. It might be a crass or base way to express that, but it is certainly sufficient. I would not fault its use.

The concerns of a sentient agent ARE more important than non-sentient agents which have no concerns. No concerns AT ALL. Of any type.

In that sense yes "wants" are more important that a gestating fetus of 12-16 weeks which is the age well over 95% of abortions by choice actually happen.

Because if we are going to have a moral and ethical debate, then our primary concern has to be with agents for whom we should have moral and ethical concerns. The mother is such an agent. The fetus is no more such an agent than a rock or a table leg.

If you can think of ANY reason why we should have moral and ethical concern for a non sentient construct..... you would literally change my view of abortion..... and actually my view of quite a number of other subjects too.... literally over night. And I would change those views without hesitation, reservation, embarrassment or hostility. In fact I would likely thank you for it and literally hold a party in your name. I love being shown where I am wrong. To be shown I was THAT wrong for THAT long..... I would laud you as my personal hero for as long as I draw breath.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Totally get abortion for people who are raped

Do you get it? I genuinely hope you do because I do not. This is one of the areas where I disagree with my fellow pro choice people. I genuinely do not get why rape is relevant. And I never have.

Let me explain why.

If like me you do not think a fetus has rights..... then rape is not relevant. Any woman can get an abortion at any time. Rape simply has nothing to do with the situation.

If however you do believe the fetus has rights, specifically and most importantly a right to life, then those advocating a rape caveat are advocating a position that the fetus should forfeit that right..... one of the most primary rights we hold dear as a species..... because of a crime it was neither the perpetrator of, nor the temporal victim of.

Which for me is a hard moral position to parse. How often have you come across situations where bystanders forfeit rights for being the witness of a crime? Let alone their most fundamental rights?

There are a lot of posts and threads on this forum on the subject of victim blaming. Like blaming the victims of rape for wearing the wrong clothes or similar.

The opinion of Abortion you espouse here for me goes beyond blaming the victim into the realm of blaming, and then condemning, the bystander.

And that is a moral position I simply can not parse. So I truely hope you can "get it" because you would be the first person ever who can explain it to me. And I genuinely want to understand it. Is it anything more than an empathy for the victim of rape? Or is there something deeper than that I am missing?

Thankfully since I do not see a 12-16 week old fetus as a moral agent..... I do not have to force rape to be congruent to my views on abortion.

I like how you put it Mary. I put it a different way but I like yours too.

I think the reason we got the right vote in the referendum is that abortion more than any other subject has united us as a species in asking the question "What does it actually mean to be human" and forces us to ask the questions of "What are ethics, what is morality, where do these things come from, what are they for, and how can we improve them".

And the more and more we ask those questions, the more and more we realise that moral and ethical concern demands of us that we hang those concepts on things that actually deserve them. That while we might feel emotional when we see a tongue flapping around on a medical screen...... or while taxonomy might tell us that some blob of biological matter is "Human"...... that morality and ethics demands we go one step further than our emotive responses to arbitrary subjective lines in the sand.

And when we really understand what matters in our world, and our universe, we realise that in and of itself a fetus does not. Neither in and of itself.... and certainly not in relation to the concerns (wants!) of actual sentient agents like the pregnant PERSON housing it.

The only moment that a fetus matters is when there is someone for whom it justifiably matters TO. A pregnant woman who in the knowledge that there is a life growing inside her chooses to put her hands to herself and say the words eternal.... I am having a baby.