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
Keep abortion out of Ireland
Options
Comments
-
doctoremma wrote: »No it isn't. The NHS is a government-funded body which acts semi-autonomously within the legal framework provided by a government. The UK government has created a law which allows abortion at different stages under different circumstances. The NHS interprets this law as befits its care of duty to its patients.
And what of the NHS duty of care to unborn children or the handicapped or disabled ?doctoremma wrote: »Do you (or GRGGGAUA letters) have any evidence that it is UK government policy to recommend abortion for disabled children?
Of course you don't, because it's not true. It's not government policy at all and nor should it be. When you look carefully at the statement, you'd see how ridiculous it is. Do you think other countries/UN would allow it to pass as government policy? Do you think the people would vote for a party with such policies? Debate is one thing, a bit of passion and anger can be OK, but hysteria and hyperbole make people look stupid.
Because a policy is not written down does not mean that it does not exist. What is the Syrian Government policy regarding Christians? What were Fianna Fail government policies regards the acceptance of bribes? The evidence of UK government actions is that Downs Syndrome babies and other babies with abnormalities are aborted every day using UK taxpayers money.
What does the evidence that in utero genetic tests are deployed using tax payers money tell us? It tells us that someone wants the population of those who do not have the requisite generic make up prevented from entering the population where possible. It may not be policy to abort every one but it clearly is policy to present the option of having you unborn genetically imperfect child legally killed.doctoremma wrote: »Re eugenics: you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.
If there is a perceived difference in understanding of your part please enlighten us. I would be fairly confident the my understanding and that of my pro-life, anti-abortion and human life valuing compatriots are in allignment. What do you believe eugenics to be?0 -
Is it seriously your position that in utero genetic tests should not be deployed?What does the evidence that in utero genetic tests are deployed using tax payers money tell us?
No, it tells you that because you've already decided that's what it means. To most people, in utero tests are a huge medical leap forward.It tells us that someone wants the population of those who do not have the requisite generic make up prevented from entering the population where possible.
Which is not what you said. And yes, it clearly is policy to present that option. It's also clearly the policy of the UK government to present the option of allowing a "genetically imperfect" child to be born.It may not be policy to abort every one but it clearly is policy to present the option of having you unborn genetically imperfect child legally killed.Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
The duty of care in early stages is to the pregnant woman, because the unborn child here is not considered to be a human life. The duty of care in late stages is to both where possible, but still ultimately with the pregnant woman.And what of the NHS duty of care to unborn children
The NHS has exactly the same duty of care to all people. Before 24 weeks, an unborn child is not considered a person.or the handicapped or disabled ?
So you have no evidence that this is an explicit policy of the UK government (or even the NHS)? Fine, let's move on.Because a policy is not written down does not mean that it does not exist.
The bit you have missed out is crucial. Here's what you should have written:The evidence of UK government actions is that Downs Syndrome babies and other babies with abnormalities are aborted every day using UK taxpayers money.
The evidence of UK government allows a provision in law such that a woman found to be carrying a child with a serious handicap can choose to access an abortion; the result is that babies with Downs Syndrome babies and other babies with abnormalities are aborted every day using UK taxpayers money.
This is not a top-down decision by the government or the NHS. It is a bottom-up choice made by the mother.
As I've said previously, prenatal testing allows for a whole range of diagnoses of a whole range of conditions. It allows families to make choices, to make preparations and for the treatment of conditions to begin, either in utero or soon after birth. It is widely considered a medical triumph and routinely allows babies who would be in mortal danger to be born safely.What does the evidence that in utero genetic tests are deployed using tax payers money tell us?
Yes it is. The choice of termination is presented as an option, not as a policy of recommendation. So you retract (on behalf of G-letters)?It may not be policy to abort every one but it clearly is policy to present the option of having you unborn genetically imperfect child legally killed.
Top-down .v. bottom-up. Eugenics is the former, abortion is the latter.If there is a perceived difference in understanding of your part please enlighten us. I would be fairly confident the my understanding and that of my pro-life, anti-abortion and human life valuing compatriots are in allignment. What do you believe eugenics to be?0 -
Is it seriously your position that in utero genetic tests should not be deployed?
If abortion is not an option what is their purpose? Some currently deployed tests carry the risk of false positives and miscarriage. Are these risks worth it and if so to what end?No, it tells you that because you've already decided that's what it means. To most people, in utero tests are a huge medical leap forward.
To what kind of people? People who want perfect children? Parenthood comes with risks - that's a given. If you are not prepared to accept and deal with those risks you should think carefully before becoming a parent.
What about parents who give birth to a perfectly healthy baby who later suffers a mishap that leads to them being for example brain damaged. Clearly there is no law for "retrospective abortion" so they have to deal with it.
If the light of the latter what real merit is there to the information prenatal testing can provide if abortion is not an option.Which is not what you said. And yes, it clearly is policy to present that option. It's also clearly the policy of the UK government to present the option of allowing a "genetically imperfect" child to be born.
Be careful in what you attribute to what I posted. What I said was the presentation of the option by a government funded organization is indicative of a certain sentiment. I also said that because something is not written down somewhere so that it can be presented as evidence is not evidence that such a policy may not exist.
While I did not present an argument for it being "UK government policy" I would certainly agree that it is proabably an unwritten policy of many governments given the costs involved in caring for the handicapped, disabled and diseased.
This is of interest: UK screening policies
England. Abortion available. Downs screening offered
Wales. Abortion available. Downs screening offered
Scotland. Abortion available. Downs screening offered
Northern Ireland. Abortion not available. Downs screening not offered.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »The duty of care in early stages is to the pregnant woman, because the unborn child here is not considered to be a human life. The duty of care in late stages is to both where possible, but still ultimately with the pregnant woman.
If not a human life what is it?doctoremma wrote: »
The NHS has exactly the same duty of care to all people. Before 24 weeks, an unborn child is not considered a person.
If not a person, what is it?doctoremma wrote: »So you have no evidence that this is an explicit policy of the UK government (or even the NHS)? Fine, let's move on.
Already commented on another post. Because it is not written down does not mean that the policy does not exist.
The bit you have missed out is crucial. Here's what you should have written:doctoremma wrote: »The evidence of UK government allows a provision in law such that a woman found to be carrying a child with a serious handicap can choose to access an abortion; the result is that babies with Downs Syndrome babies and other babies with abnormalities are aborted every day using UK taxpayers money.
I'm sorry but why are you using the term child? Child implies human life which you do not agree it is. Child implies person which you do not agree it is.doctoremma wrote: »This is not a top-down decision by the government or the NHS. It is a bottom-up choice made by the mother.
The option to provide abortion is from the top.doctoremma wrote: »As I've said previously, prenatal testing allows for a whole range of diagnoses of a whole range of conditions. It allows families to make choices, to make preparations and for the treatment of conditions to begin, either in utero or soon after birth. It is widely considered a medical triumph and routinely allows babies who would be in mortal danger to be born safely.
If a baby has a certain condition is it not in mortal danger before birth if abortion is available?doctoremma wrote: »Yes it is. The choice of termination is presented as an option, not as a policy of recommendation. So you retract (on behalf of G-letters)?
No I do not retract and certainly not on behalf of any other poster Emma. Sorry ,I cannot refer to you as Doctor for lack of evidence. Also if you cannot be bothered to use cut and paste to refer to another poster by their chosen alias I really see no merit in referring to your name at all. Perhaps we can just refer to you as E. Is that acceptable. You can call me Mister.doctoremma wrote: »Top-down .v. bottom-up. Eugenics is the former, abortion is the latter.
Actually eugenics is about seeking to improve the genetic quality of a race by managing the gene pool. This can be achieved by limiting conception to those deemed to have the correct qualities and preventing the birth of those who contain defective genes.
Providing abortion as an option in the case of Downs syndrome and other genetic anomalies is clearly a eugenic practice.0 -
Advertisement
-
This has already been covered - we have opposing viewpoints on what is considered to be human life, both based on our own assessment of evidence and personal philosophy. Neither will change the other's mind so there's no point bringing it up again.If not a human life what is it?
If not a person, what is it?
Where abortion happens for a medical reason, it is reasonable to assume that the fetus is actually a wanted child. In cases of early abortion to prevent unwanted children, I wouldn't use the word "child".I'm sorry but why are you using the term child? Child implies human life which you do not agree it is. Child implies person which you do not agree it is.
The option to choose abortion is from the bottom. You really don't get that there's a free choice here, do you?The option to provide abortion is from the top.
Then we are all in mortal danger because we are all able to be killed at any time. This is clearly a ridiculous argument. The baby can be in mortal danger because of what's wrong with it (or wrong with the mother). Identifying such a condition to allow for treatment is, IMO, a medical imperative. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where we refuse to screen and treat for fear of the parents choosing to terminate.If a baby has a certain condition is it not in mortal danger before birth if abortion is available?
You allow babies to die because you're afraid they might die. That makes no sense to me.
You seemed keen enough to jump onto his/her argument....No I do not retract and certainly not on behalf of any other poster
I have no preference for what you choose to call me. I believe last time we, um, engaged, it was something like Mengele. Clearly, I'd rather you desist from that, mostly because it doesn't further your argument any.Emma. Sorry ,I cannot refer to you as Doctor for lack of evidence. Also if you cannot be bothered to use cut and paste to refer to another poster by their chosen alias I really see no merit in referring to your name at all. Perhaps we can just refer to you as E. Is that acceptable. You can call me Mister.
You think parents choosing to abort a seriously handicapped child are thinking of the gene pool???? That the birth of their baby is being prevented????Actually eugenics is about seeking to improve the genetic quality of a race by managing the gene pool. This can be achieved by limiting conception to those deemed to have the correct qualities and preventing the birth of those who contain defective genes.
The verb endings in your last sentence indicate that you consider eugenics to be a top-down dictat rather than a bottom-up choice. And for the record, limiting conception to "desirable" people most definitely falls under my definition of eugenics.
Covered already.Providing abortion as an option in the case of Downs syndrome and other genetic anomalies is clearly a eugenic practice.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »This has already been covered - we have opposing viewpoints on what is considered to be human life, both based on our own assessment of evidence and personal philosophy. Neither will change the other's mind so there's no point bringing it up again.
Scientific fact trumps personal philosophy. It is a human being. It is human life. Fact. It will be brought up again and again and again until you give up holding on to a lie so you can support murder.doctoremma wrote: »Where abortion happens for a medical reason, it is reasonable to assume that the fetus is actually a wanted child. In cases of early abortion to prevent unwanted children, I wouldn't use the word "child".
Of course you wouldn't. like most who want to kill someone, you have to dehumanize them. If you actually accepted the scientific fact that the life of every human being begins at conception you might find it less and less tenable to hold that abortion is right when clearly it is always wrong.
Professional killers almost always have to dehumanize their victims, especially in the early part of their careers. Why do you think hangmen put black hoods over their victims or the leader of a firing squad blindfolds their victim. It is not for the benefit of the victim as this act frequently terrorizes them. No, it is for the benefit of those watching the execution or pulling the trigger. With no face or eyes visible it is easier to carry out the act.
Likewise military snipers who are trained to aim not for the head but for the chest and torso. This presents a larger target but does not guarantee a kill. There are benefits to having incapacitiated but still living enemies on the battle field but the primary benefit is that the sniper does not have to gaze at the targets face and consider the reality of what they are doing. Killing another human being.
However, I thank you for your honesty in admitting that you have no problem with dehumanizing some humans.doctoremma wrote: »The option to choose abortion is from the bottom. You really don't get that there's a free choice here, do you?
The availability of that choice, the fact that it is legalized murder, comes from the Top.doctoremma wrote: »Then we are all in mortal danger because we are all able to be killed at any time. This is clearly a ridiculous argument. The baby can be in mortal danger because of what's wrong with it (or wrong with the mother). Identifying such a condition to allow for treatment is, IMO, a medical imperative. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where we refuse to screen and treat for fear of the parents choosing to terminate.
Abortion is not an accident. Regardless of what is wrong with the mother or the child abortion doesn't fix it. Ireland, where direct abortion for medical reasons is illegal, has an incredible record on the safety of both the mothers and their children.doctoremma wrote: »You allow babies to die because you're afraid they might die. That makes no sense to me.
You made that misinterpretation up so it is no wonder it makes no sense to you.doctoremma wrote: »You seemed keen enough to jump onto his/her argument....
I will always support good in the battle against evil.doctoremma wrote: »I have no preference for what you choose to call me. I believe last time we, um, engaged, it was something like Mengele. Clearly, I'd rather you desist from that, mostly because it doesn't further your argument any.
That depends. Are you still playing with <snip> embryos?
I've run a search as my memory is not a perfect as yours and guess what? I cannot find any post were I actually called you Mengele. It may be that the search function is defective so perhaps you could post me a link. Or perhaps some moderator deleted it.
My recall is that I made a reference and you made an incorrect inference.
<snip>doctoremma wrote: »You think parents choosing to abort a seriously handicapped child are thinking of the gene pool???? That the birth of their baby is being prevented????
I didn't mention parents so to clarify - Abortion "prevents" handicapped children from being born alive. In my opinion those that are offering the service, government funded organizations, to remove the anomalous child from the population may have the gene pool at the back of their minds or in their subconscious. I certainly do not believe that those offering the service would be so overt or so stupid as to write it down as a policy document. Not yet anyway.doctoremma wrote: »The verb endings in your last sentence indicate that you consider eugenics to be a top-down dictat rather than a bottom-up choice. And for the record, limiting conception to "desirable" people most definitely falls under my definition of eugenics.
The availability of abortion is also from the Top as it is something the Law decides and the Law is that the Top, not the bottom, just as the law makes are at the top, not bottom.
If abortion is not to be available in the UK the ultimate decision for this will come from the Top by changing the law. It may be that the push to change the law will start at the bottom but ultimately it must reach the Top before abortion is consigned to history as the greatest evil ever perpetrated by human kind against its own children.doctoremma wrote: »Covered already.
And it will be covered again and again and again.
Abortion is an evil that kills human beings. It is an evil perpetrated by human beings against other defenseless and weak human beings for selfish reasons.0 -
No it's not. Fact.Scientific fact trumps personal philosophy. It is a human being. It is human life. Fact.
^ That statement has exactly the same weight as yours, unless you're going to back it upBoardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
-
No it's not. Fact.
^ That statement has exactly the same weight as yours, unless you're going to back it up
Consider it backed up.
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilizedzygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the question is though Festus - is it a human person ?0
-
-
Scientific fact trumps personal philosophy. It is a human being. It is human life. Fact. It will be brought up again and again and again until you give up holding on to a lie so you can support murder.
Thanks Festus.. Donnie Darko needs to brush up on his biology. Hard to argue with a person who hasn't been taught the birds and the bees.0 -
-
None of those qoutes appear to say that a fertlized egg or a zygote are human beings, more that they are part of the development process of a human being. An acorn is not an oak tree.
Isn't a baby also part of the "development process". Humanity has strong and weak points. Abortion targets the weakest point of a person trying to claim they are a non person.0 -
paxtecumfilome na wrote: »Virgin Mary: Introduce abortion in Ireland and you sever the link to my heartOn February 17, 2012 @ 3:30 pmDownload article as PDF [1]
I am your beloved Mother, Queen of the Angels, the Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception.
Oh how I weep today as Ireland, the country most dedicated to me, their beloved Mother, falls prey to the evil one.
Great darkness has descended over this nation. So many have lost their faith, just as so many have turned their hearts away from my beloved Son, Jesus Christ.
My children in Ireland have allowed the evil one to turn their hearts to stone.
Those who love my Son are in pain as they witness the secularism which has taken control over this, once holy, country.
Attempts are now being made to introduce abortion and if this were to happen it will deeply offend my Precious Son.
My children should you introduce abortion in Ireland you will sever the link that has brought you so close to my heart.
So many people in Ireland now insult my Son through the disrespect they show Him. I also am no longer tolerated and my name is demeaned.
Children of Ireland, chosen as special souls to impart the word of my Father throughout the world, you must listen to me.
Pray, pray, pray that these plans to introduce abortion laws do not take place.
Should this happen, Ireland will lose much favour in my Father’s Kingdom.
The sin of abortion is the most grievous in the eyes of my Father. It is the worst kind of genocide.
You must fight this evil children. You must do it now or the last divine link which needs to be strengthened will, instead, be weakened.
You must rise children and reclaim your Catholic and Christian faiths for they are being stolen from you.
Do not allow those in power to sneer at you when you proclaim the holy word of God.
This spirit of darkness has now, not only covers your country, but the holy shrines at which I am supposed to be revered.
I weep in sorrow as I see my beloved Ireland fall by the wayside.
Yet there is hope children. But you must now join, in force, to protect your faith.
Soon you will be forced to abandon, not only your Catholic faith, but your Christian Faith.
Reclaim your country from socialism and secular dictatorships.
They will plead for the right of citizens but will deny the very rights they claim to protect including the right to pray.
They will force you to accept, in law, the right to murder children not yet born.
Remember each soul was lovingly created by God the Almighty Father.
Any man who chooses abortion or assists in the wicked act of abortion commits mortal sin.
Pray, pray, pray my crusade prayer for Ireland (32)
O Mother of Salvation
Pray for your children in Ireland to prevent
The wicked act of abortion from being inflicted upon us
Protect this holy nation from sinking deeper into despair
From the darkness which covers our country
Rid us of the evil one who wants to destroy your children yet to be born
Pray that those leaders will have the courage to listen to those who love your Son
So that they will follow the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen.
Go now my child and tell my children in Ireland that they must be strong. They must stand up for what is right.
They must never be afraid to proclaim the truth, the Holy Word of God, no matter how difficult this may be.
Your beloved Queen of Heaven
Mother of Salvation
"Reclaim your country from socialism"?! I think she has the wrong country! Really, who is this supposed to convince?0 -
-
I think people who are debating about maternal mortality should look at the realities and risks of abortion. I see little in the forum about Marie Stopes International. In 2007 a 15 year old girl died in their abortion clinic in leeds from an abortion. Aleesha Thomas left the MSI clinic in Leeds, England in July 2007 after having an abortion and she died five days later.
We are debating introducing legislation to save the life of the mother.. Yet how conveniently we overlook the women who die as a direct result of abortion on demand.0 -
while it's tragic both women died after the abortion, Aleesha died of toxic shock syndrome because she wasn't given antibiotics to fight off infection after the abortion.
According to any article I found, any surgical or skin wound can potentially lead to TSS. Tampons are the most frequent cause of TSS, will you be calling for the banning of tampons to protect women from TSS?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Yet how conveniently we overlook the women who die as a direct result of abortion on demand.
But you are overlooking the significantly greater amount of woman who die from unsafe abortions in countries where abortions are illegal. As of 2009 the number of fatalities from these back alley abortions was estimated to be around 70,000 women per year. If they had access to these services legally the high majority of them would probably be alive today. I don't know about you but I'd prefer to fight to save an actual person than a potential person.0 -
Advertisement
-
while it's tragic both women died after the abortion, Aleesha died of toxic shock syndrome because she wasn't given antibiotics to fight off infection after the abortion.
According to any article I found, any surgical or skin wound can potentially lead to TSS. Tampons are the most frequent cause of TSS, will you be calling for the banning of tampons to protect women from TSS?
Reality is... Had she not had the procedure she would not have died. Her death is a direct result of the abortion.0 -
while it's tragic both women died after the abortion, Aleesha died of toxic shock syndrome because she wasn't given antibiotics to fight off infection after the abortion.
According to any article I found, any surgical or skin wound can potentially lead to TSS. Tampons are the most frequent cause of TSS, will you be calling for the banning of tampons to protect women from TSS?
Reality is... Had she not had the procedure she would not have died. Her death is a direct result of the abortion.
The same is true of any surgical procedure. What other procedures do you plan on banning? And you haven't answered the question about banning tampons.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
The same is true of any surgical procedure. What other procedures do you plan on banning? And you haven't answered the question about banning tampons.
What about manon jones in wales...? Had she not had an abortion she and her baby would be alive.
Abortion is not a surgical procedure... Is removing a baby from the womb.
And its never 100% safe.0 -
In 2005, a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy.
http://www.lifenews.com/2005/02/14/nat-1194/0 -
parents claim they were "coerced" into a termination by staff at Macclesfield District General Hospital.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html#ixzz1z2KZQsOt0 -
Thanks Festus.. Donnie Darko needs to brush up on his biology. Hard to argue with a person who hasn't been taught the birds and the bees.
Cop on Matthew Hopkins - there is no point rehashing that whole issue of life , personhood etc as there is an excellent dialogue on this very thread between festus and wicknight outlining the opposing views .
Accept that there is a substantial body of opinion that does not agree with you and that is not going to change , from either side.
So the only real issue for discussion is what are we going to do about it ?
imho the whole plethora of referenda and keep abortion out of Ireland campaigns have in fact only succeeded in making its introduction inevitable0 -
No it's not. Fact.
^ That statement has exactly the same weight as yours, unless you're going to back it up
It is pretty factual that the when the embryo is formed that a life has begun. Growth is exhibited, and what is dead cannot grow.
As for marienbad saying why is it a human life. That's rather simple. It's formed of human biological material, a sperm and an ova.
As for others who may say, isn't that similar to a tumour? - No, it's not, because a tumour does not develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and finally death.
The pro-choice argument can't really argue against that the embryo / foetus is a human life. In fact I think it's quite disingenuous not to acknowledge that.0 -
The inquest heard there was a four-hour delay in giving her a blood transfusion when the doctor treating her was diverted to another emergency, and Miss Jones later died.What about manon jones in wales...? Had she not had an abortion she and her baby would be alive.
So, while the abortion is the likely reason she ended up in hospital, it was due to a delay in giving her a blood transfusion that was why she died.
As a generalisation, that's incorrect, the UK has different types of abortion which depends on how far along the pregnancy is. Between 5 and 15 weeks, surgical suction is used. Between 15 and 20 weeks, it is surgical, dialation - evacuation that is used.Abortion is not a surgical procedure... Is removing a baby from the womb.
Again, the same is true of most surgical/medical procedures.And its never 100% safe.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Reality is... Had she not had the procedure she would not have died. Her death is a direct result of the abortion.
Well, let's take a few more steps back then:
Her death is a direct result of having sex.
Her death is a direct result of meeting a guy.
Her death is a direct result of hitting puberty.
Her death is a direct result of being alive.
It's incredibly sad that she died. No one is arguing that. But, as with most things in life, an accidental death usually isn't a direct result of anything. Every car crash is a direct result of driving. Every surgical death is a direct result of needing surgery.
What about all women who have died while giving birth? Their deaths are a direct result of not having an abortion, and there are more of them than women who've died from having abortions.0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a book called Spiritual Midwifery - a joyous celebration of childbirth, published by the midwives of The Farm, a commune in Tennessee that shared its safe and family-friendly childbirth services with anyone who wanted them. The Farm had - and I assume still has - a far better rate of safety for mothers and babies than the official US midwifery services.
The first edition of Spiritual Midwifery had an extraordinary offer at the end. It went something like: "If you're going to have an abortion, don't. Come to us and have the kid, and leave it with us as long as you have to. You can have it back any time."
Later editions don't have this. The reason is that The Farm was swamped with babies. The communards live/d at a rate far below the official US poverty level, but lived well, happily, intelligently and generously - but even they were not able to take in, love and raise the many babies left with them.
Their offer is really the only honest anti-abortion statement I've ever heard.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement