Legalise abortion

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.

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. Presenting cases where there is no justification for an abortion and an abortion alone and where there is no medical necessity is nothing more than obfuscation and only adds to the confusion.

There may be grey areas in medical care but there are no grey areas when a health woman finds herself with a healthy pregnancy she does not want or had not planned for.

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. This is no different to a battle field surgeon who lets the patient with the least chance of survival die while working or the patient with the best chance of survival.

Arguments involving pre-eclamsia, HELLP, cervical or uterine cancer, or any other medical conditions do not hold water and the best practice medical treatments do not require legal support.

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!

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

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 letting it die). 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: »

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.

Why do you persist in presenting pre-eclampsia as a case. That has been dismantled too yet you persist in ignoring it. If every woman wanting an abortion had pre-eclampsia you might have a chance but that is not the reality.

The reality is that women with pre-eclampsia present this as a condition during pregnancy that is more usually planned or wanted than not and want to give birth to a healthy child if that is possible. If it is not possible the doctor provides the best medical care (s)he can and if immediate delivery is the only option that is what is done. If the child cannot survive it is unfortunate but what else can you do? This is not a justification for legalized abortion and an abortion itself does not resolve as there are months of after care involved.

And don't think you can present my views for me. The killing of an unborn child is not the same as providing a treatment for a condition other than pregnancy that results in the loss of the pregnancy.

The topic of the thread is "legalize abortion" and in any other words that is abortion on demand. 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.
If your position is correct then there should be plenty of cases in the courts where the doctors "conflict" with the law has been tested. There aren't

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: »

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. .

I mention it because it is a reality.
But you are right; even if pre-eclampsia is a justification for termination, it is not a justification for 'abortion on demand'. But why I mention these 'difficult' areas is twofold:
1. They exist and we need clarity in the law to allow the medical profession to operate within the law'; what exists now is not that.
2. Confronting the moral difficulties at the ends of this debate are vital to developing a proper understanding of it as whole; for instance, have you managed to rationalise your belief that a foetus and mother are equal with your willingness to allow a foetus to die simply to improve a mother's survival chances?

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..

You gave us the medical council's position about 8 years ago....!:eek:

And of course there are situations where maternal care is 'compromised' by the current status of the law. Where there is a substantial risk to the health of the mother, caused by the foetus, an abortion is not permitted. This fact is expressly stated in the new ethical guidelines (have you found them yet...??!!:rolleyes:) - one would have thought that if the medical council had felt the need to insert this in its guidelines to doctors, it might have some clinical relevence, no...?

One example is HELLP syndrome, where a substantial increase in blood pressure is causing a risk of a stroke, a risk to the health of the mother. In that case, unless there was a substantial risk of death, intervention by way of termination is not permitted. How you think that is not a compromise, I dont know....

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.

I want the 'best' treatment for me and mine. I dont want to reject treatment choices because they are not the 'only' one available.

And you accuse me of being 'out-of-date'; you cant even get the in-date medical guidelines that you attempt to rely on....:D

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: »

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.

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.

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.

For me what makes you a person is your mind and your soul (if you belive in souls) and that makes it a philosophical debate where as this for me is not a debate about the rights and wrongs of abortion, its about the issue of choice. For me that is I am not saying that is it for you.
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. I don't need to back that up with a link any more than I expect you to back up what does or doesn't make a woman who miscarries a mother or not.

It is your choice to view and consider all things human as being equal. It is your choice. See that choice word again.

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: »

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.

Go for it. You say women should have the right to choose to kill their unborn children.

I say women already have the right to choose to become pregnant. Once pregnant there is another human being involved. Why should this human being not enjoy the same right life its mother and father has?

You can all harp on as much as you like about what a woman can and can not do in the event of a pregnancy but the GREAT thing is they can pop on a plane or boat, head over to good old Blighty and get themselves a termination... thank **** for Blighty is all I can say....!!!