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

Legalise abortion

SLUSK

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

Oh; you are talking about 'double effect' - a Catholic nonsense. It is a ridiculous concept and is entirely discredited in medical ethics.

But in any case, the primary objective of the treatment in, for instance, pre-eclampsia is to remove the foetus. It is the foetus - or more accurately, its effect on maternal physiology - which is causing the problem.

Medicine should be practiced on the basis of the most effective treatment, not on the basis of whether there is a less effective other treatment available. Termination of pregnancy is, in many cases, the most effective treatment for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, endometrial and cervical cancer and some other conditions. In some cases of eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, it is the only treatment that will suffice.

The treatment involves delivery, not abortion. Women who present with pre-esclampsia want to continue the pregnancy and are treated with the best drug regime for the conditions until the delivery can be completed successfully. It is not an argument for legalized abortion.

Now, tell me how abortion cures cancer.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

You need help alright; particularly if you cannot see the difference between the husband-wife relationship and the materno-fetal one. And no, management of suicidality doesnt involve 'incarceration' in most cases, although it could in some.

Come on, I thought we had got past this posturing with comments like „you need help alright“. I am politely and genuinely asking for more information on your position, please be bigger than using that as an opportunity to get a pointless dig in. You’re better than that, I hope and I am not sure who you feel it impresses.

As I said, the rights of others to live do not change just because one individual goes around saying “I will kill myself if you do not kill the other”. I am failing to see the rationale therefore in doing it in this ONE case.

What I DO see is a woman needing treatment and I think we should afford her that treatment.

What I ALSO see is a person threatening to take an action that will endanger the life of another, and normally when such threats are made we DO incarcerate (and then rehabilitate) the person doing the threat. If a woman says she will kill herself (and in doing so kill another being) then all the laws we currently have about one person making threats on the life of another different person should be brought into play, along with affording medical assistance to the woman in question.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Nozz; you still wont answer a the question and you try and slip your way out of it by claiming you did give an answer.

I did answer and just because you said I did not does nto mean I did not. Fine if you want me to repeat myself I will. I am never one to turn down a platform when it is offered to me.

I said I would advocate abortion in late term if and only if there is not other courses of treatment open to us.

That, as far as I can see, answers what you asked.

What your fantasy situation is doing is asking me an unanswerable question because it leaves out WAY too much information. How long, for example, is the woman in question along in the pregnancy? One course of treatment might be to induce the birth and do our best to treat, as we do very often, the premature child.

Another is to give the woman the treatment she deserves, and then do our best to save the child later (see my comment about flicking the train tracks).

There is just too much left out of your scenario for me to give any coherant answer.

nozzferrahhtoo

GarlicBread wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting incarcerating suicidal pregnant women and forceing them to give birth? Please say you didnt mean to say that :eek:.

I am merely advocating exercising the SAME laws that we do in ANY situation where one person threatens to take an action that endangers the life of another person.

I am pro-choice, but I do not see why the rights of the baby change merely because of its location. A person EITHER has a right to be protected from the actions of another or it does not. Location is irrelevant.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course they struggle because you have couched it terms of "killing" when you should be discussing "allowing to die"

For example, a battlefield surgeon only has time to save one life from two equally critically injured solders. Which one should he kill so he has more time to work on the other?

You are right to distinguish between allowing to die and killing. There is a difference.

There is a difference too between my scenario and yours. In mine by saving one you are likely killing the other where the other was under no danger of death. In yours the saving of one allows another that would have died anyway to continue on that path.

In my scenario I would opt to save the first, and THEN do my best to save the second.

In your scenario, I dunno, toss a coin or base your decision on other details you might know about the relative worth of the two soldiers in relation to others, the war effort itself or whatever.

sparkling sea

drkpower wrote: »

Oh; you are talking about 'double effect' - a Catholic nonsense. It is a ridiculous concept and is entirely discredited in medical ethics.

Double Effect, is a set of ethical criteria for evaluating the permissibility of acting - when one’s otherwise legitimate act, - also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid - used in criminal cases were specific intent is not the issue. An example being in a 2002 case it was found that medical treatment may be given to terminally ill patients, although it may hasten death.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

The treatment involves delivery, not abortion. Women who present with pre-esclampsia want to continue the pregnancy and are treated with the best drug regime for the conditions until the delivery can be completed successfully. It is not an argument for legalized abortion..

Hohoho!
This is the nonsense that Catholics teach to a blind flock. If the foetus is unviable, delivery IS abortion. If delivery is not abortion, can we legalise 'delivery at 10 weeks for social reasons? Its not abortion, after all, if the foetus survives, good luck to it. How can you swallow the rubbish they teach you without gagging?

And you are right re: pre-eclampsia, medical treatment is first line; but if that fails, or appears to be failing, there comes a point at which the safest treatment is abortion.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now, tell me how abortion cures cancer.

The management of cervical and endometrial cancer includes a surgical option. That surgical option involves removal of the uterus. That involves termination of a pregnancy. Did you need me to tell you that?

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I DO see is a woman needing treatment and I think we should afford her that treatment.

What I ALSO see is a person threatening to take an action that will endanger the life of another, and normally when such threats are made we DO incarcerate (and then rehabilitate) the person doing the threat. If a woman says she will kill herself (and in doing so kill another being) then all the laws we currently have about one person making threats on the life of another different person should be brought into play, along with affording medical assistance to the woman in question.

1. What if the 'medical treatment' fails and a psychiatrist sees abortion as the only feasible option?
2. For the purposes of the Mental Health Act 2001, a threat to a foetus is not a threat to another person. You can seek to change that, but have a little think about what the repercussions of allowing involuntary detention of mothers who harm their foetus may result in. Then tell me if you want it.
3. Legally, suicidality is a potential reason for involuntary detention; therapeutically it is an option of absolute last resort.

The Corinthian

GarlicBread wrote: »

The fetus is not a seperate independant person, its an extention of the womans body until it is born and cant survive without her. Thats why it is called an abortion, because the pregnancy is aborted before it becomes a person.

A fetus cannot survive outside of an environment that will support it. Neither will an infant. Or neither will we for that matter - take away oxygen and water and see how long we last.

A fetus is not actually an extension of the woman's body, if it was surrogacy or incubators would not be possible. The problem is that we have yet to replace the female uterus with an artificial alternative - however, that should not be confused with suggesting it is or is not independent as ultimately it is - in the right environment a zygote will develop to adulthood, never requiring its biological mother - its the basis of egg donation in IVF.

Otherwise it would be called murder.

That does not follow either. Just because a person dies through direct or indirect action, or inaction, does not make it murder - it can be manslaughter, self-defense, death by misadventure, to name a few. In war we even praise one's capacity to kill others.

Similarly, if a man requires a lung transplant from you to live, and you refuse, that does not make you a murderer - the right to life is not a simple black and white affair.

As I've previously stated, I believe this debate is too obsessed with humanizing or dehumanizing the fetus, mainly because emotively we find it easier to limit the discussion to that.

Are you seriously suggesting incarcerating suicidal pregnant women and forceing them to give birth? Please say you didnt mean to say that :eek:

It comes down to if the fetus is a 'person' and if, as a person, their right to life supersedes the rights of the woman over her body. And then there is the issue of the rights of the father, who has no recourse if he wants the child or not. If an abortion makes him suicidal, then that's his tough. If being forced to become a father makes him suicidal, then that's his tough too.

Such hypocrisy makes it hard for me to sympathize with a 'suicidal pregnant woman'.

sparkling sea

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I ALSO see is a person threatening to take an action that will endanger the life of another, and normally when such threats are made we DO incarcerate (and then rehabilitate) the person doing the threat. If a woman says she will kill herself (and in doing so kill another being) then all the laws we currently have about one person making threats on the life of another different person should be brought into play, along with affording medical assistance to the woman in question.

We rehabilitate a person that may commit an action that will endanger another - however the unborn is not classed as a full person.

Some people are implying the a feotus has legal rights equal to that of a person this is not the case in reality, so their arguement is based on a false premise

The baby O case in 2002 centered on the deportation of a pregnant woman who claimed her unborn child was a separate person and should be treated as so in Irish law, however it was found that Article 2 did not apply to the unborn and the unborn was not a separate person.

Another example would be if I choose to take a child that I had given birth too, to another country to be murdered I would not be allowed too and rightly so because the Human Rights of all people are equal.

The 2007 D case involved the right to travel, a 17 year old pregnant girl in the care of the HSE. The foetus could not survive after birth, the girl wanted an abortion but refused to say she was suicidal to procure an abortion. The court found there was no law to stop her traveling and she did not need the courts permission to do so. The feotus does not have rights in reality, it is solely dependent on the woman for survival and does not have its own separate rights and the courts cannot interfer with her freely made choices.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

1. What if the 'medical treatment' fails and a psychiatrist sees abortion as the only feasible option?

I reject that scenario is possible. There is always another option in the case of someone threatening suicide. You can protect them (and therefore the 2nd life) from themselves.

drkpower wrote: »

2. For the purposes of the Mental Health Act 2001, a threat to a foetus is not a threat to another person. You can seek to change that, but have a little think about what the repercussions of allowing involuntary detention of mothers who harm their foetus may result in. Then tell me if you want it.

I do not know what the current law on that is and I will not pretend to. What I do know is that we have laws and procedures which we enact when Person A threatening an action on the life of Person B. My opinion at this time is that I would want to see those laws implemented.

drkpower wrote: »

3. Legally, suicidality is a potential reason for involuntary detention; therapeutically it is an option of absolute last resort.

Agreed, but the scenario we are talking of here is not JUST suicide. It is making threats on the life of another too. We have to account for that too in this discussion. If you make a threat on the life of another being of equal rights, then there are laws for that. I want to see those laws implemented, regardless of whether you are a person threatening my life, or a woman threatening a baby's.

nozzferrahhtoo

sparkling sea wrote: »

We rehabilitate a person that may commit an action that will endanger another - however the unborn is not classed as a full person.

Some people are implying the a feotus has legal rights equal to that of a person this is not the case in reality, so their arguement is based on a false premise

I know, the arguments I have been espousing here are not about what the unborn is considered as, but what I think it should be considered as. And after a certain cut off point (regardless of whether you agree with exactly where I put that cut off point) I feel that the foetus is a being of equal rights as a person.

I honestly do not see why mere location influences the rights of an individual. It should either be considered to have them, or not have them. Mere location should not be a factor in my opinion.

But as I said we are now blurring the lines between what currently is, and what we are arguing FOR. Hence you are right to say not everything we are saying is based in "reality"

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I said I would advocate abortion in late term if and only if there is not other courses of treatment open to us.
That, as far as I can see, answers what you asked..

Nope, you didnt answer it - try again: the question was do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment? There is another option open to you. To force the mother to term, when she can receive treatment. She will still have a 20% chance of survival. If she was allowed to terminate at, lets say, 18 weeks (termination in this case involves removal of the uterus, so it is not a case of treat her and see what happens to the foetus) , she would have had a 60% chance of survival? So there is another option. Which would you advocate? Force her to term; or allow an early termination?

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

A fetus is not actually an extension of the woman's body, if it was surrogacy or incubators would not be possible. The problem is that we have yet to replace the female uterus with an artificial alternative - however, that should not be confused with suggesting it is or is not independent as ultimately it is - in the right environment a zygote will develop to adulthood, never requiring its biological mother - its the basis of egg donation in IVF.

It comes down to if the fetus is a 'person' and if, as a person, their right to life supersedes the rights of the woman over her body. And then there is the issue of the rights of the father, who has no recourse if he wants the child or not. If an abortion makes him suicidal, then that's his tough. If being forced to become a father makes him suicidal, then that's his tough too.

Such hypocrisy makes it hard for me to sympathize with a 'suicidal pregnant woman'.

In reality the fetal stage is the 11th to the 25th week - at this stage a feotus isnt implanted and although it is possible has a slim chance of surival outside the womb. The closer to the 25th week the feotus is the greater the chance but it still slim. It is therefor an extension of a womens body as it wont survive if removed.

Why do equate the rights of a suicidal pregnant woman with that of the rights of the father - can you not sympathise with both. Further a balancing of both their rights where a conflict exists means the the womens right to control over her mind and body would supercede a mans right to such control over her, even in such sad circumstances

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I reject that scenario is possible. There is always another option in the case of someone threatening suicide. You can protect them (and therefore the 2nd life) from themselves..

Reject all you want; doesnt change the fact that it is possible (albeit extremely unlikely).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not know what the current law on that is and I will not pretend to. What I do know is that we have laws and procedures which we enact when Person A threatening an action on the life of Person B. My opinion at this time is that I would want to see those laws implemented..

I told you that our laws do not consider the foetus a person so are impotent to deal with these scenarios. Would you advocate a situation where a mother can be involuntarily detained if she poses a threat to the life of her foetus? Try and answer this question.

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

Hohoho!
This is the nonsense that Catholics teach to a blind flock.

I someone is going to resort to using terms that could be described as bigoted and or sectarian then I would suggest that they have lost the arguement and know it and any further exploration is less than worthwhile.

If a woman wants an abortion and as has been erroneously presented that if a child in the uterus dies as a result of treatment for cancer then one would have to assume that what has been described is a situation whereby if a woman wants an abortion she must first present evidence that she has cancer.

Is it your argument that if a woman wants an abortion she has to get cancer first?

sparkling sea

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But as I said we are now blurring the lines between what currently is, and what we are arguing FOR. Hence you are right to say not everything we are saying is based in "reality"

So shouldn't all factors be considered then - for example, autonomy over ones body, cost, travel, services the right to privacy, when a feotus can feel pain, Ireland as the secular society it has become and the implications on societies beliefs ?

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Nope, you didnt answer it - try again: the question was do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

You may not like my answer, but that does not mean I have not given you one. I have given it to you, and I stick by what I have said. If there is no other course available to us to protect the mother, except for termination, then yes I advocate giving the mother that option.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

I told you that our laws do not consider the foetus a person so are impotent to deal with these scenarios. Would you advocate a situation where a mother can be involuntarily detained if she poses a threat to the life of her foetus? Try and answer this question.

I did answer this question . If two beings are to be considered to have the „right to life“ then if one person is threatening an action on the life of another, I advocate incarceration.

I stick to that regardless of whether we are talking about you and me, or a mother and baby.

Maybe the laws so not consider it a person, but that is why I am on this thread in the first place. To advocate from when and how we SHOULD be considering it a person.

StealthRolex

sparkling sea wrote: »

In reality the fetal stage is the 11th to the 25th week - at this stage a feotus isnt implanted and although it is possible has a slim chance of surival outside the womb. The closer to the 25th week the feotus is the greater the chance but it still slim. It is therefor an extension of a womens body as it wont survive if removed.

Factually incorrect. Implantation occurs six days after ovulation if fertilization has occurred.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275660/human-embryology/63779/Implantation-and-placentation

neither is it an extension of the womans body as it is genetically different. That it is inside the womans body is because that is how human reproduction works.

nozzferrahhtoo

sparkling sea wrote: »

So shouldn't all factors be considered then - for example, autonomy over ones body, cost, travel, services the right to privacy, when a feotus can feel pain, Ireland as the secular society it has become and the implications on societies beliefs ?

That is why we are having this discussion in our society in the first place. So we CAN consider all those things. If you want to pick one of them and run with it I am more than happy to discuss it.

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

In reality the fetal stage is the 11th to the 25th week - at this stage a feotus isnt implanted and although it is possible has a slim chance of surival outside the womb. The closer to the 25th week the feotus is the greater the chance but it still slim. It is therefor an extension of a womens body as it wont survive if removed.

How is that a rebuttal to my previous post?

Why do equate the rights of a suicidal pregnant woman with that of the rights of the father - can you not sympathise with both. Further a balancing of both their rights where a conflict exists means the the womens right to control over her mind and body would supercede a mans right to such control over her, even in such sad circumstances

Therefore and for example, in the interests of equality (given that women are able to avoid the financial responsibilities of parenthood), you would support a 'male abortion'?

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

If a woman wants an abortion and as has been erroneously presented that if a child in the uterus dies as a result of treatment for cancer then one would have to assume that what has been described is a situation whereby if a woman wants an abortion she must first present evidence that she has cancer.Is it your argument that if a woman wants an abortion she has to get cancer first?

Wtf?
English please.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You may not like my answer, but that does not mean I have not given you one. I have given it to you, and I stick by what I have said. If there is no other course available to us to protect the mother, except for termination, then yes I advocate giving the mother that option.

And i explained that there is another option available; to force her to term and then treat her reducing her chance of survival by 40%. So that is your view, then; you would allow the woman's chance of survival to slip from 60% to 20%. That's grand.

GarlicBread

Lets not forget the type of society we have just emerged from. We had a practice in this country up until recently of locking up pregnant women and then using them for slave labour. People should not even be entertaining the idea of bypassing the rights of pregnant women in anyway shape or form.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did answer this question . If two beings are to be considered to have the „right to life“ then if one person is threatening an action on the life of another, I advocate incarceration.

I stick to that regardless of whether we are talking about you and me, or a mother and baby.

Ok; lets explore that; you advocate involuntary detention of pregnant women who pose a risk to theri children through suicide. Do you advocate involuntary detention of pregnant women who pose a risk to theri children through the following:
- drug abuse
- alcohol abuse
- smoking
- failing to take folic acid
- failure to live healthily

In each case, please explain your answer.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

And i explained that there is another option available; to force her to term and then treat her reducing her chance of survival by 40%. So that is your view, then; you would allow the woman's chance of survival to slip from 60% to 20%. That's grand.

Never once said that, but if you want to take it that this is my answer even though it is not, then go right ahead.

I do not feel obliged however to comment on percentages you have wholly made up. We could be here all day. You say 60% 20% now and if you want to know in this case I would afford her the option of abortion. What is the point of that? You will just change it to say…. 60 30 and ask again. Then 60 40 and ask again. Then 60 50 and ask again.

In the end you will end up with a long list of yes’s, a long list of no’s and a long list of I honestly do not know’s.

Neither of us will gain anything from such a list, which is why I am sticking to the generalised answer I gave you to a generalised question backed up with a fictitious specific example.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

In each case, please explain your answer.

No because I am talking solely about actions which WILL lead to the death of the child.

If the mother kills herself the child goes with her.

If she could find a method of suicide that will allow the baby to survive, then that is entirely different, but there are not many of those, especially considering the length of time before most suicide victims are found.

This is entirely different to actions which affect the eventual health outcome of the new born. This is something I simply do not know how to police, though clearly it is unfortunate.

To extend my earlier analogy, if you threaten an action that will kill me I would advocate incarceration. If you smoke around me and put me at risk of second hand smoke, I do not.

My opinion on your list is exactly the same as that analogy.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Never once said that, but if you want to take it that this is my answer even though it is not, then go right ahead.

I do not feel obliged however to comment on percentages you have wholly made up. We could be here all day. You say 60% 20% now and if you want to know in this case I would afford her the option of abortion. What is the point of that? You will just change it to say…. 60 30 and ask again. Then 60 40 and ask again. Then 60 50 and ask again.

In the end you will end up with a long list of yes’s, a long list of no’s and a long list of I honestly do not know’s.

Neither of us will gain anything from such a list, which is why I am sticking to the generalised answer I gave you to a generalised question backed up with a fictitious specific example.

Unbelievable

; you cant give a straight answer to any question. Nozz, Ive wasted enough time on you already - if you dont have the moral courage to answer questions in a straightforward manner you shouldn't be discussing these topics. Good luck.

The Corinthian

GarlicBread wrote: »

Lets not forget the type of society we have just emerged from. We had a practice in this country up until recently of locking up pregnant women and then using them for slave labour.

Why don't you cite Saudi Arabia too, while you're at it - that's just as relevant to the society we live in as the historical past is.

People should not even be entertaining the idea of bypassing the rights of pregnant women in anyway shape or form.

Why? Is is a religious taboo to do so?