Riddickcule wrote: » This day in age it is absolutly ridiculous we have not legalized abortion. Didn't the EU come in a while back and say we have no choice but to change that because it breachs international law? I swear this country needs a good kick up the arse.
drkpower wrote: » The right to life is not absolute; it is not black & white; and it is tiring having to correct your repeated ignorance and errors of law and fact. If you have only a passing knowledge of the law, you should refrain from making positive statements about it - it only serves to embarrass you.
StealthRolex wrote: » Look who's talking. You and your cohorts are trying to justify abortion by misrepresenting reality, the law and medical ethics.
Resorting to describing certain practices as "Catholic" as you have done and being ignorant of the reality of what is involved in being a doctor embarrasses you.
Women in Ireland are protected in law if they need medical intervention. The discussion here is whether abortion meaning the direct killing of life in the uterus for no other purpose other than to terminate a pregnancy should be legalized.
StealthRolex wrote: » Arguments for abortion should only be made by those who were aborted, thought it was a good idea at the time, and still think it's a good idea.
The Corinthian wrote: » Actually, you have consistently being using semantics for the purposes of misrepresentation. This has been pointed out to you. Additionally, suggesting I am anyone's 'cohort' is myopic. Searching through this thread you will find that I have argued both sides of this discussion, rather than following either. I've never resorted to labeling anything as 'Catholic'. Nonetheless, abortion so as to protect the life of the mother (as allowed in law) is an example of where the right to life is not as black and white as you have claimed, and thus is relevant to the discussion.
StealthRolex wrote: » I think you'll find I didn't quote you and was not responding to you. If you now wish to consider yourself a member of the pro-choice cohort so be it.
Nonetheless the example of abortion to protect the life of the mother has been debunked. If a mother is in need of treatment and all you do is provide an abortion what happens?
The Corinthian wrote: » I'm not a member of either cohort and have repeatedly said that. That may be a little difficult to conceive in such a polarized and politicized topic, but there you go. I responded because drkpower made a number of points not dissimilar to my own and you attempted to dismiss him by accusing him of semantic obfuscation (of which you are guilty yourself) and Catholic witch hunts. It's not been debunked - at least not if you understand its importance. Naturally a mother, in such a situation, will receive more treatment than just the abortion, but that is irrelevant to the fact that such scenarios debunk the dogmatic view that the right to life is somehow absolute. It's not. It does not matter if the abortion was 'collateral damage' or if it was not the principle aim - bottom line is the right to life was overridden by someone else's rights. As discussed, those overriding rights need not even be the right to life, and gave numerous other examples. As a result, you need to argue on the basis that the right of the fetus to life supersede any other rights that the mother may have, rather than rely upon some trump card that in reality does not trump in all cases.
StealthRolex wrote: » Even with so called grey areas in medical care there are no circumstances where a doctor will find themselves in conflict with the law in providing care to a pregnant woman so long as their primary intention with any treatment is not to kill the child
StealthRolex wrote: » I have also asked for cases where an abortion and an abortion alone is the only course of treatment. I'm still waiting for a response that holds water or that points to a need to change the law in this country.
StealthRolex wrote: » The Medical Council's Ethical Guidelines state that "should a child in utero suffer or lose its life as a side effect of standard medical treatment of the mother, then this is not unethical" and "refusal by a doctor to treat a woman with a serious illness because she is pregnant would be grounds for complaint and could be considered to be professional misconduct." .
drkpower wrote: » Stealth; I dismantled all of your points in a detailed manner on the last page, and the best you can do is the non-specific nonsense a few posts above...... My job here is done! But just to finish, I'll comment on this. Because it reflects well your ignorance of both the law and the medicine. This is utter nonsense. The reality is that medical practice walks a tightrope around this area. The law is not clear so doctors do their best. So, where a woman comes in with pre-eclampsia, and the prognosis is guarded, involving a possible and genuine risk to her life if a rapid deterioration occurred, they usually adopt a 'wait & see' approach. This medical approach will not guarantee the mother's survival; an abortion would. And this abortion would not be with the 'primary intention of killing the child' - but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. What if the mother begged for an abortion, in fear of her life, what would they do? What does the law say? Is that a 'substantial' risk? Is the doctor entitled to abort on the basis of this real and genuine risk to the mother? Probably not, but noone really knows and the doctors, faced with this situation, certainly dont. So here is one clear cut example of how this conflict may arise. There are many many others. The same areas of conflict in the law arise when it comes to saving a foetus (rather than killing it). What if a woman (through fear or religon) refused to undergo a caesarean section, but to do so would kill her foetus? What is a doctor to do? What does the law say? We dont know, or at least not for sure. The point is that there are many areas of medicine where the 'best treatment' may conflict with the law. But, listen, I dont expect you to know much about the pracitce of medicine or of law. And If you want to simply confine this debate to discussion of 'abortion on demand', fine, I can do that. But for you to have a properly educated and rounded view of this issue, you need to honestly confront the difficult parts of this debate, and you need to confront your own views which allows the killing of foetuses, not to 'save' the mother, but to simply give her a 'better chance' of survival. Until you really confront these issues, you arent at the grown-ups table on this issue.
drkpower wrote: » Medical practice is not about providing the 'only' treatment. It is about providing the best treatment, for that particular patient. The fact that you would make the point above simply illustrates your ignorance of medical practice.
drkpower wrote: » FFS, all you can do is google - try harder - you are cutting and pasting from (very) out of date ethical guidelines. They have been changed twice since the section you have quoted was used. Lets see if you can find the new guidelines......
StealthRolex wrote: » Why do you persist in presenting pre-eclampsia as a case. This is not a justification for legalized abortion and an abortion itself does not resolve as there are months of after care involved. .
StealthRolex wrote: » The concept of an abortion law to support the work of the medical profession is untenable. I have already presented the medical councils position and there has never been a case in this country where maternal care has been compromised by the current status of the law or accepted medical ethics..
StealthRolex wrote: » If you have a case were the killing of unborns is the only option and there is a requirement for this to be legalized make the case. If you cannot be bothered to do the medical research to justify your position then you need to do more than grow up. Your opinion that those who oppose your point of view as uneducated and unrounded is a touch immature. Instead you resort to regurgitating out of date pro-choice bunk.
StealthRolex wrote: » It is your argument that abortion in some cases is the 'only' treatment. I disagree.
StealthRolex wrote: » I did and have but I don't agree with their current position. Besides, they don't make the law and as we are talking about legalized homicide...
StealthRolex wrote: » It is your argument that abortion in some cases is the 'only' treatment. I disagree. I did and have but I don't agree with their current position. Besides, they don't make the law and as we are talking about legalized homicide...[/QUOTE] Homacide relates to killing a person, a foetus is a foetus not a viable person. It is my firm belief that any pregnant woman (and lets not call such a woman a mother for she is not a mother at this stage) should have a legal right to choose whether to continue with her pregnancy or not. The reasons she may have to terminate the pregnancy are hers and it is her conscience that must deal with any fall out. I think it is a dreadful wrong against women that they do not have this choice. A foetus is a foetus not a child. It has the potential to become a child but it is not a child.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » Homacide relates to killing a person, a foetus is a foetus not a viable person.
It is my firm belief that any pregnant woman (and lets not call such a woman a mother for she is not a mother at this stage)
The reasons she may have to terminate the pregnancy are hers
and it is her conscience that must deal with any fall out.
A fetus is a fetus not a child. It has the potential to become a child but it is not a child.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » StealthRolex wrote: » It is your argument that abortion in some cases is the 'only' treatment. I disagree. I did and have but I don't agree with their current position. Besides, they don't make the law and as we are talking about legalized homicide...[/QUOTE] Homacide relates to killing a person, a foetus is a foetus not a viable person. It is my firm belief that any pregnant woman (and lets not call such a woman a mother for she is not a mother at this stage) should have a legal right to choose whether to continue with her pregnancy or not. The reasons she may have to terminate the pregnancy are hers and it is her conscience that must deal with any fall out. I think it is a dreadful wrong against women that they do not have this choice. A foetus is a foetus not a child. It has the potential to become a child but it is not a child. Ok, lets call it infanticide then if you think homicide - the killing of a human - is the wrong term If you can prove it is not a human being go ahead. If you can define the point when a "potential human" becomes a human go ahead. The term foetus is a medical term for a human being at a particular stage in life along a continuum, nothing more. embryo - foetus - newborn - baby - infant - child - teenager - adult - geriatric and probably other terms in between so while a "foetus" is not in technical terms a "child" it is a human being located in the female uterus eating, sleeping, eliminating, respiring and growing just like older children who have left the uterus do. In terms of potential an egg and a sperm have the potential to become a child - all you need do are put them together in the right environment and wait while it grows and you have a child which is a potential teenager. If you wait a little longer you get a teenager which is a potential adult and longer still you will have a potential geriatric. At what age following conception do you think it is a dreadful wrong to kill it? Don't forget that nearly 50% of what gets aborted are potential feminists.
Zulu wrote: » A fetus is a person. Who says it's not? You? No, lets do just that. You explain to the woman that's just had a miscarriage that she isn't a mother; you explain to the pregnant woman of a wanted child she's not a mother. And they impact two other people. Why would her conscience have to deal with anything? Unless there was something wrong. If it's not a person - there would be no issues with conscience. A child is a child but not an adult. It has the potential to become an adult but it's not an adult. Whats your point? They are all human. They are all people.
StealthRolex wrote: » Penny Dreadful wrote: » Ok, lets call it infanticide then if you think homicide - the killing of a human - is the wrong term If you can prove it is not a human being go ahead. If you can define the point when a "potential human" becomes a human go ahead. The term foetus is a medical term for a human being at a particular stage in life along a continuum, nothing more. embryo - foetus - newborn - baby - infant - child - teenager - adult - geriatric and probably other terms in between so while a "foetus" is not in technical terms a "child" it is a human being located in the female uterus eating, sleeping, eliminating, respiring and growing just like older children who have left the uterus do. In terms of potential an egg and a sperm have the potential to become a child - all you need do are put them together in the right environment and wait while it grows and you have a child which is a potential teenager. If you wait a little longer you get a teenager which is a potential adult and longer still you will have a potential geriatric. At what age following conception do you think it is a dreadful wrong to kill it? Don't forget that nearly 50% of what gets aborted are potential feminists. Its not infanticide, to have that you need to have an infant. I would have different cut off points for termination for different reasons. In general 12 weeks. After that should severe defects (take anencephaly for instance) be detected at later stages of development then again, I think the choice should be there.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » Ok, lets call it infanticide then if you think homicide - the killing of a human - is the wrong term If you can prove it is not a human being go ahead. If you can define the point when a "potential human" becomes a human go ahead. The term foetus is a medical term for a human being at a particular stage in life along a continuum, nothing more. embryo - foetus - newborn - baby - infant - child - teenager - adult - geriatric and probably other terms in between so while a "foetus" is not in technical terms a "child" it is a human being located in the female uterus eating, sleeping, eliminating, respiring and growing just like older children who have left the uterus do. In terms of potential an egg and a sperm have the potential to become a child - all you need do are put them together in the right environment and wait while it grows and you have a child which is a potential teenager. If you wait a little longer you get a teenager which is a potential adult and longer still you will have a potential geriatric. At what age following conception do you think it is a dreadful wrong to kill it? Don't forget that nearly 50% of what gets aborted are potential feminists.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » What makes you a person is a whole other debate.
A woman who has had a miscarriage may view herself as a mother who has lost a child. That is her choice. Others may not and that is their choice.
A child is a viable entity independent of inhabiting a woman's body
Its a human foetus but a foetus. So yes they are all human but not (in my opinion) all people in the same way.
Zulu wrote: » No, it's this debate actually. Well while it maybe other peoples choice to ignore a fact, that doesn't make the fact untrue. The woman is either a mother or they are not. If she "chooses" not to call herself a mother doesn't mean she isn't - it just means she's ignoring the fact. Similarly, someone else "choosing" not to call her a mother is ignoring a fact. Often pedophiles choose not to call themselves pedophiles, but they are. You see the can't avoid the fact. Where did you pull that definition from? Can you please provide a link? Hummm, well you see, in my opinion all humans are equal regardless of their mental, or physical development status.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » Science says that a foetus is a foetus. What makes you a person is a whole other debate.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » A child is a viable entity independent of inhabiting a woman's body a foetus is not. Its a human foetus but a foetus. So yes they are all human but not (in my opinion) all people in the same way.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » I am not saying that I necessarily agree with abortion but I do however, think that every woman should have the right to determine what happens with and to her body and whether to carry a pregnancy or not and no one should be able to decide that on her behalf. Its the right to choose.
StealthRolex wrote: » Science says that a human being is created at conception. What makes you a person is not a whole other debate - it is a matter of DNA, uniquely individual and created at fertilization. Unless of course you want to debate the difference between a human being and a person. A child cannot survive without its parents or someone to look after it therefore it still is not independently viable. At what point do you decide that a human becomes a person? Yes, every woman has the right to choose to become pregnant but once pregnant she is a potential mother, assuming the child survives the pregnancy, carrying a new human being inside of her which although it is connected via an umbilical for purposes of growth and survival it is not part of the womans body and is genetically different. If we are going to argue a womans "right to choose" can we also argue for mens rights to abort their children against the will if the woman as it is also his child and is as much his body as it is the womans?[/QUOTE] You can try to argue that but its not. The crux of the matter is that the woman has to host the developing foetus and after 39 weeks or so endure childbirth. When and if a man has to or can do that then he will be in a position to lay claim to the same rights to chose as a woman. Similarly a man cannot force a termination on a woman because it is an intervention that must be carried out on her body not his. I don't want to debate the moral, ethical, religious, social, etc rights and wrongs of abortion as people perceive them that is not what I am here to do. I do however, think that a debate on a woman's right to chose is required.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » StealthRolex wrote: » Its not infanticide, to have that you need to have an infant. I would have different cut off points for termination for different reasons. In general 12 weeks. After that should severe defects (take anencephaly for instance) be detected at later stages of development then again, I think the choice should be there. Well we'll just have to go back to calling it homicide which suits as that is the term most legislatures used before they legalized it, and in jurisdictions where it is illegal the charges brought are homicide. In anencephaly it is better both physiologically and psychologically for the mother to give birth naturally - at least that way she has an intact baby to mourn and bury. An abortion would not only double her mortality risks but can also put future pregnancies in jeopardy due to the size of the baby when diagnosis is made.
StealthRolex wrote: » Its not infanticide, to have that you need to have an infant. I would have different cut off points for termination for different reasons. In general 12 weeks. After that should severe defects (take anencephaly for instance) be detected at later stages of development then again, I think the choice should be there.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » I don't want to debate the moral, ethical, religious, social, etc rights and wrongs of abortion as people perceive them that is not what I am here to do. I do however, think that a debate on a woman's right to chose is required.
StealthRolex wrote: » I have not presented the right to life as an absolute rather I presented it as a right that everyone has.
If you want to argue for an absolute right to life then you have to also deal with issues such as palliative care for the terminally ill and the right to switch off machines maintaining brain dead patients. None of these issues are related to killing an unborn human being.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » Re: either you are a mother or you're not, well then I do not think a woman who miscarries at 10 weeks is a mother, she is (as far as I am concerned) a woman who has miscarried a pregnancy. However, as far as she is concerned, she may see herself as a mother that has lost a child. Its about perception.
The definition of a child being a viable entity independent of the mother is my own understanding of what makes a child different to a foetus.
It is your choice to view and consider all things human as being equal. It is your choice. See that choice word again.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » I don't want to debate the moral, ethical, religious, social, etc rights and wrongs of abortion as people perceive them that is not what I am here to do.
I do however, think that a debate on a woman's right to chose is required.
Penny Dreadful wrote: » It is your choice to view and consider all things human as being equal. It is your choice. See that choice word again.
