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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion debate thread

1…2425272930…59

Comments

  • #782
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    It is good to see that the army of straw men paraded by J C and georgieporgy is ignored by Ireland as a whole.

    Threat of suicide 'will be grounds for abortion'
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/threat-of-suicide-will-be-grounds-for-abortion-3331201.html


  • #783
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Morbert wrote: »
    It is good to see that the army of straw menparaded by J C and georgieporgy is ignored by Ireland as a whole.

    Threat of suicide 'will be grounds for abortion'
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/threat-of-suicide-will-be-grounds-for-abortion-3331201.html

    Not 'Straw Men' 'twas 'Frog Spawn'


  • #784
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    Not 'Straw Men' 'twas 'Frog Spawn'
    Your 'gallows humour' does not become you.

    If people laugh when unborn children die ... and people believe that given the choice, we should kill children and protect frogs ... (because there are too much of us and not enough of them) ... then it's God help Ireland ... or any other country where such attitudes prevail.


  • #785
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    It is good to see that the army of straw men paraded by J C and georgieporgy is ignored by Ireland as a whole.

    Threat of suicide 'will be grounds for abortion'
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/threat-of-suicide-will-be-grounds-for-abortion-3331201.html
    I think it would be wise to 'hold fire' until we see exactly what legislation is going to be introduced.

    Ireland is a beacon of enlightenment and medical excellence where both mothers and babies are cared for to the maximum extent possible.


  • #786
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    J C wrote: »
    I think it would be wise to 'hold fire' until we see exactly what legislation is going to be introduced.

    Ireland is a beacon of enlightenment and medical excellence where both mothers and babies are cared for to the maximum extent possible.

    Unless there's a conflict - and then all bets are off.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flier wrote: »
    Unless there's a conflict - and then all bets are off.
    All bets are off in favour of the mother where her life is in real and iminent danger... and that is how it should be.
    What is unacceptable is the killing of unborn children as a lifestyle choice ... or because somebody believes we have too many people already ... or because the unborn child is asleep!!!


  • #788
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    J C wrote: »
    All bets are off in favour of the mother where her life is in real and iminent danger... and that is how it should be.
    What is unacceptable is the killing of unborn children as a lifestyle choice ... or because somebody believes we have too many people already ... or because the unborn child is asleep!!!

    Where did you get that idea? A doctor can only terminate a pregnancy if there is a 'real and substantive risk' to the life as opposed to the health of the mother. In our constitution, a mother has only an equal right to life, and even that is almost as an afterthought. There is no legislation in place to allow doctors to remain within the law, and the Medical Council guidelines are just that - guidelines with no basis in law. So no. There is no 'in favour of the mother'.


  • #789
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flier wrote: »
    Where did you get that idea? A doctor can only terminate a pregnancy if there is a 'real and substantive risk' to the life as opposed to the health of the mother. In our constitution, a mother has only an equal right to life, and even that is almost as an afterthought. There is no legislation in place to allow doctors to remain within the law, and the Medical Council guidelines are just that - guidelines with no basis in law. So no. There is no 'in favour of the mother'.
    No doctor has (or would) be censured when they stay within Medical Council guidelines ... so the guidelines have the de facto status of law.
    I think that it is a good idea to have statutory regulations to clarify any 'grey' legal areas that exist on this issue ... but such legislation shouldn't be used a legal mechanism to introduce abortion on demand ... which would be the case if 'health' was to become a reason for abortion.
    Our health is impacted by many things in day to day living, including pregnancy ... and in other juristictions it has been used to effctively sanction abortion on demand.


  • #790
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    Well I'm very glad that you feel that doctors have the protection of the law. But the fact is that many doctors do not feel so comfortable. Including 2 current and one former master of our maternity hospitals. I haven't heard the opinions of any other masters, so I can't comment. I do however have the opinion of a medico-legal lawyer who also agrees that doctors may be open to prosecution, so while it may be very cosy where you're sitting, those at the coal face are decidedly more exposed.

    Risk to health can often, very quickly and without warning, become risk to life, and he idea of not putting the health of a mother, and not just her life, first in a jepoardy situation is appalling to me. And what can or can not happen as a result of any legislation brought in is a matter for our legislators, and shouldn't deter us from trying to do right by our mothers. And yes, our health is impacted by many things, including pregnancy, and women should be able to go through their pregnancy in the knowledge that their health will come first. Always.


  • #791
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flier wrote: »
    Well I'm very glad that you feel that doctors have the protection of the law. But the fact is that many doctors do not feel so comfortable. Including 2 current and one former master of our maternity hospitals. I haven't heard the opinions of any other masters, so I can't comment. I do however have the opinion of a medico-legal lawyer who also agrees that doctors may be open to prosecution, so while it may be very cosy where you're sitting, those at the coal face are decidedly more exposed.
    I'm not so sure that adding more 'legalise' is going to help much when a doctor is faced with some kind of unusual situation ... and the more law ... the more reasons there will be for lawyers to get their teeth into when it come to litigation.

    However, I have already said, that I think that it is a good idea to have statutory regulations to clarify any 'grey' legal areas that exist on this issue ... and I bow to the opinions of the eminent doctors involved in this area that legislation would be helpful to them.
    Flier wrote: »
    Risk to health can often, very quickly and without warning, become risk to life, and he idea of not putting the health of a mother, and not just her life, first in a jepoardy situation is appalling to me.
    I agree that a mild headache can rapidly become a serious case of Meningitis ... but we can't live our lives as chronic hypochondriacs ... going on massive doses of intravenous antibiotics every time we have a hangover.
    That is why we have medical science ... to evaluate whether there is a real threat to our lives ... or just a pain in the neck from listening to some pro-abortionist telling us about how 'killing' has become 'choice'.

    Flier wrote: »
    And what can or can not happen as a result of any legislation brought in is a matter for our legislators, and shouldn't deter us from trying to do right by our mothers. And yes, our health is impacted by many things, including pregnancy, and women should be able to go through their pregnancy in the knowledge that their health will come first. Always.
    We need to do right by both mothers and children. Sometimes it will require the wisdom of Solomon ... but if we lose our moral compass and start killing for the sake of it ... then we have entered very dangerous moral and medical territory indeed.

    There isn't much point in passing legisation to suppsedly increase 'childrens rights' ... if we're going to kill them before they're born!!


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not so sure that adding more 'legalise' is going to help much when a doctor is faced with some kind of unusual situation ... and the more law ... the more reasons there will be for lawers to get their teeth into when it come to litigation.
    However, I have already said, that I think that it is a good idea to have statutory regulations to clarify any 'grey' legal areas that exist on this issue ... and I bow to the opinions of the eminent doctors involved in this area that legislation would be helpful to them.


    I agree, 40.3.3 was a mistake imo. But that is what we are stuck with now, and it is a legal minefield, and personally I feel we should have another referendum to repeal 40.3.3 and replace it with something else.
    J C wrote: »
    I agree that a mild headache can rapidly become a serious case of Meningitis ... but we can't live our lives as chronic hypochondriacs ... going on massive doses of intravenous antibiotics every time we have a hangover.
    That is why we have medical science ... to evaluate whether there is a real threat to our lives ... or just a pain in the neck from listening to some pro-abortionist telling us about how 'killing' has become 'choice'.

    But isn't it nice to know that if you do have a headache that is suspicious for meningitis, that your doctor will go ahead and treat you for meningitis, without having to be sure your life is at risk. Unfortunately pregnant women don't have the same assurances.


  • #793
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flier wrote: »
    I agree, 40.3.3 was a mistake imo. But that is what we are stuck with now, and it is a legal minefield, and personally I feel we should have another referendum to repeal 40.3.3 and replace it with something else.
    Article 40.3.3 sets out the general principle of concern for the life of both the mother and the child. Legislation is required to set out how this principle is to be applied in practice.
    Flier wrote: »
    But isn't it nice to know that if you do have a headache that is suspicious for meningitis, that your doctor will go ahead and treat you for meningitis, without having to be sure your life is at risk. Unfortunately pregnant women don't have the same assurances.
    Pregnant women do have the same assurance. Doctors need to be satisfied that you have real and substantive symptoms of Meningitis before they will treat you for it ... and the same standard (of real and substantive risk) to the life of the mother must be present before doctors will terminate a pregnancy.


  • #794
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    J C wrote: »
    Article 40.3.3 sets out the general principle of concern for the life of both the mother and the child. Legislation is required to set out how this principle is to be applied in practice.

    Pregnant women do have the same assurance. Doctors need to be satisfied that you have real and substantive symptoms of Meningitis before they will treat you for it ... and the same standard (of real and substantive risk) to the life of the mother must be present before doctors will terminate a pregnancy.

    I'm afraid you're wrong there. Doctors don't need to have anything like that level of certainty before they will treat you for meningitis. in fact it could be considered negligent to wait for 'real and substantive' symptoms before treating you. So no, they don't.

    The problem with 40.3.3 is that the wording is so impresice that legislation to reflect the spirit of the article will be very difficult to draft. Talk to anyone at the Medical Council involved in drawing up the guidelines if you don't believe me.


  • #795
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flier wrote: »
    I'm afraid you're wrong there. Doctors don't need to have anything like that level of certainty before they will treat you for meningitis. in fact it could be considered negligent to wait for 'real and substantive' symptoms before treating you. So no, they don't.
    The threshold of proof may indeed be lower for treating meningitis ... as the downsides of treating it aren't very significant ... and the risks of not treating it are very serious.
    When it comes to abortion (where a mothers life may be at risk ... and often, a much wanted unborn child's life is 'on the line') ... the threshold of proof will be somewhat higher than for a decision to put somebody on antibiotic therapy ... but the process would be the same.
    Flier wrote: »
    The problem with 40.3.3 is that the wording is so impresice that legislation to reflect the spirit of the article will be very difficult to draft. Talk to anyone at the Medical Council involved in drawing up the guidelines if you don't believe me.
    The principle that it sets out ... of respect for the life of both the mother and child is correct.
    Translating that principle into medical practice, and ensuring that all medical treatment is available to the mother ... while not opening the floodgates to abortion on demand is undoubtedly difficult ... but well worth the effort involved.

    Something that rarely is discussed is how a doctor decides in a situation where a mother is begging him/her to save both herself and her baby.
    Where is the threshold of intervention in this scenario?
    It is often forgotten that most 'life of death' situations for the mother occur where the mother wants the baby and doesn't want an abortion ... but the pregnancy is threatening her life.

    I don't envy doctors their jobs!!!


  • #796
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Pregnancy is a very dangerous time for the mother of the child anyhow.

    All Christians are obliged to observe the unique status that every individual has from conception.
    This respect has to be maintained regardless of what man-made law may say.


  • #797
    Keylem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Keylem


    hinault wrote: »
    Pregnancy is a very dangerous time for the mother of the child anyhow.

    All Christians are obliged to observe the unique status that every individual (Jesus included) has from conception.
    This respect has to be maintained regardless of what man-made law may say.

    10059556070327754073106.jpg


  • #798
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    hinault wrote: »
    Pregnancy is a very dangerous time for the mother of the child anyhow.
    The danger varies from practically non-existent (for mothers who 'sail through' pregnancy 'blooming' as they go) ... to iminent and real danger of death (where there are serious life-threatening complications). Thankfully, the latter are quite rare ... but they need to be addressed ... and are addressed in current medical practice.
    hinault wrote: »
    All Christians are obliged to observe the unique status that every individual has from conception.
    This respect has to be maintained regardless of what man-made law may say.
    That is true ... but this isue goes beyond Christianity to the common Humanity that we all share with both the mother and the unborn child. If she was my daughter I'd want the very best care for her, if she was pregnant ... and if she was my granchild, I'd also want the very best care for her before she is born as well. Sometimes only my daughter can realistically survive ... and in these situations obviously saving my daughter's life becomes the priority.


  • #799
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    If Christians believe that

    1. Heaven is a better place than Earth
    2. You - should - go Heaven when you die.
    3. A foetus has a soul and is a life.

    We can say Ergo

    1. The foetus goes to heaven and doesn't have to waste time on Earth.

    What's the big deal then?

    Surely a more direct approach to Heaven should be welcomed.


  • #800
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    And if conception is so important and so life defining, how come Jesus was born to a virgin?

    If you are so convinced that human life begins at conception, if there was no conception for Jesus when did his human life begin?


  • #801
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    J C wrote: »
    That is true ... but this isue goes beyond Christianity to the common Humanity that we all share with both the mother and the unborn child. If she was my daughter I'd want the very best care for her, if she was pregnant ... and if she was my granchild, I'd also want the very best care for her before she is born as well. Sometimes only my daughter can realistically survive ... and in these situations obviously saving my daughter's life becomes the priority.

    Of course this issue goes beyond Christians and Christianity and many non-Christians do agree with the principle of defending human life from conception.

    My point is that all Christians need to assert the principle too.
    If they did so, I'm not sure that there would be an abortion industry as there currently is.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,954 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If Christians believe that

    1. Heaven is a better place than Earth
    2. You - should - go Heaven when you die.
    3. A foetus has a soul and is a life.

    We can say Ergo

    1. The foetus goes to heaven and doesn't have to waste time on Earth.

    What's the big deal then?

    Surely a more direct approach to Heaven should be welcomed.
    Yes, that's why Christians are so keen on murder, suicide, and combat to the death.

    Oh, wait a minute . . .


  • #803
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, that's why Christians are so keen on murder, suicide, and combat to the death.

    And the liberal gun laws in the US...


  • #804
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    And the liberal gun laws in the US...

    Didn't you read Peregrinus's post? It's because all us nasty Christians are super keen on murder, suicide, combat to the death [and bearing arms].


  • #805
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Didn't you read Peregrinus's post? It's because all us nasty Christians are super keen on murder, suicide, combat to the death [and bearing arms].

    I did read his post.

    Someone should be able to give a serious answer.


  • #806
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If Christians believe that

    1. Heaven is a better place than Earth
    2. You - should - go Heaven when you die.
    3. A foetus has a soul and is a life.

    We can say Ergo

    1. The foetus goes to heaven and doesn't have to waste time on Earth.

    What's the big deal then?

    Surely a more direct approach to Heaven should be welcomed.
    You are correct that death isn't believed to be the 'final curtain' by Christians ... so the reason why we object to murder is because it is an affront to God's gift of life to each of us ... and breaks the Commandment to not kill.
    It is not because we think that we cease to exist when we die.
    It is also true that God has deemed that we must live our lives physically on Earth ... before spending eternity elsewhere but there is no rush on any of us to go to eternity before the Good Lord calls us himself ... and we have Human bonds with family and friends that we don't want to be sundered by death.
    Christians view death as an evil and an enemy ... that has been introduced into the Universe through sin, so we don't welcome it or wish to facilitate it in any way.

    Another reason is that there are no certainties beyond death ... and therefore, as Human Beings, we all want to go to Heaven ... but none of us want to die ... just yet ... or to kill anybody else either.
    You do raise a very interesting point in relation to Atheists, though ... one would think that, because they believe that there is nothing beyond death ... and this life is all there is ... that they would be even more pro-life than Christians ... but this doesn't seem to be the case.
    Would any Atheist like to comment on why this is so?


  • #807
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Any Atheist like to comment on why this is so?
    As you've been told, time and time again, many here don't consider the early embryo/fetus to be a 'life' with significant value. I myself have stated that I view an early embryo/fetus as having as much of a right to life as a tree.

    So not really anything to do with what I believe happens after death.


  • #808
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    With so much attention on conception, do Christians realize that about 50% of all fertilised eggs are aborted without personal intervention?
    That means that god is hands down the biggest abortionist even before embryonic development.


  • #809
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Icepick wrote: »
    With so much attention on conception, do Christians realize that about 50% of all fertilised eggs are aborted without personal intervention?
    That means that god is hands down the biggest abortionist even before embryonic development.
    Death is an ever-present reality ... that God in His sovereign will, has chosen not to end until after the end of time.
    We must remember that God gave life in the first place ... so God logically has the right to take life away (or to not intervene when death occurs).
    However, it is morally repugnant ... and a socially unacceptable crime for Humans to deliberately kill another person.
    Thousands of people die every day with no blame attaching to anybody for their deaths ... but anybody who deliberately kills another person with full knowledge and forethought is guilty of murder ... and society chooses to impose some of it's severest criminal punishments for this most henious of crimes.


  • #810
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    J C wrote: »
    Death is an ever-present reality ... that God in His sovereign will, has chosen not to end until after the end of time.
    We must remember that God gave life in the first place ... so God logically has the right to take life away (or to not intervene when death occurs).
    However, it is morally repugnant ... and a socially unacceptable crime for Humans to deliberately kill another person.
    Thousands of people die every day with no blame attaching to anybody for their deaths ... but anybody who deliberately kills another person with full knowledge and forethought is guilty of murder ... and society chooses to impose some of it's severest criminal punishments for this most henious of crimes.
    That's OK, but foetus is not a person, especially if it has no chance to develop normally.
    As for your description of god, he sounds like a malevolent bully.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Icepick wrote: »
    That's OK, but foetus is not a person, especially if it has no chance to develop normally.
    We'll have to agree to differ on that ... unborn children are objectively the same as born children ... but only a little younger.
    Icepick wrote: »
    As for your description of god, he sounds like a malevolent bully.
    He is loving, merciful and just ... we are the sinful malevolent ones ... who project our own inadequacies onto a perfect God.


Advertisement