Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

The chairman of the team reviewing Savita Halappanavar's death has said that the law should permit termination of a pregnancy when the health of the mother, not just her life, is at risk
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/chairman-says-health-of-mother-and-not-just-life-needs-protection-1.1428146#.Ub0EaTLAI5I.facebook

Sabaratnam Arulkumaran wrote:

If you have infection, by the time it comes to sepsis and severe sepsis the fallopian tubes might be injured, she can become sub-fertile, she might have [later] an ectopic pregnancy. Life-long she might have pelvic inflammatory disease. I mean, how much are you prepared to take before considering termination of pregnancy?
“At what point is this going to give permanent injury to the woman, or what point might it escalate to death.

Lingua Franca

He makes a very good point. It seems that many prolifers consider that kind of injury acceptable when they say that exceptions shouldn't be allowed for sake of a woman's health.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

He makes a very good point. It seems that many prolifers consider that kind of injury acceptable when they say that exceptions shouldn't be allowed for sake of a woman's health.

Yes, it does. Some people seem perfectly willing for a woman to be permanently damaged as long as she doesn't have an abortion. It's sickening, really. "We don't care if you're in pain, we don't care if you're crippled, we don't care about you; we just care about your ability to have babies".

IvyTheTerrible

kylith wrote: »

Yes, it does. Some people seem perfectly willing for a woman to be permanently damaged as long as she doesn't have an abortion. It's sickening, really. "We don't care if you're in pain, we don't care if you're crippled, we don't care about you; we just care about your ability to have babies".

Also, going by the Savita case, they don't particularly care if the baby is suffering once we don't kill it (that baby must have been distressed during the time leading up to it's heartbeat stopping).

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Also, going by the Savita case, they don't particularly care if the baby is suffering once we don't kill it (that baby must have been distressed during the time leading up to it's heartbeat stopping).

We'll never know, but at least it wouldn't have been in pain as nerve endings don't develop until about week 22.

You're right that they don't care about babies though. Once again I find myself saying; if my dog was in total renal failure and I left it to die over a period of days I would be, rightly, done for animal cruelty, but they expect us to sit back and watch babies born without kidneys to die in agony, and be called murderers if we want to stop their suffering, or want them to never get to the point where they will suffer.

The Cool

I was watching a video earlier, a compilation of people's opinions as to why they were pro-life. I was struck by how innocent the answers were, save the babies, God says it's wrong, we should all be nice to each other etc etc. It seems to me that a lot of the pro-life gang see only one circumstance of abortion, being a young woman who's really selfish, having "abortion on demand". (GRRR)

It really struck me how not one of them seemed to have thought properly about the welfare of the mother. Banging on about abortion saving women's lives - am I missing something here, because I really don't see how. I find that so patronising. But anyway, my point is that it's all about the babies, nothing about the woman. About our health, sanity, all that stuff - they don't give a feic. They want this innocent baby to have a chance at life - what about the woman who already has a life, who has a body that is supposedly her own, who might have her own complicated issues that could be completely thrown out of whack by bringing a baby into the world.
This country puts more importance on the potential lives, than those of its already existing citizens. Reminds me of internet providers who give the bargains to new customers and fúck over their existing ones!

Not only do they not care about the woman's life, but they don't give a sh*t about the baby's life either once it's out of the womb.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Not only do they not care about the woman's life, but they don't give a sh*t about the baby's life either once it's out of the womb.

Just to play devil's advocate, but not giving a **** about someone is different to wishing someone out of existence, which is where they're coming from.

And regarding a baby in pain, while it is of course sickening to think of any baby/child in pain, it does not follow that termination is the logical step.

"Once again I find myself saying; if my dog was in total renal failure and I left it to die over a period of days I would be, rightly, done for animal cruelty, but they expect us to sit back and watch babies born without kidneys to die in agony"

Playing into their hands with this guff; We put dogs down because they are animals not simply because they are in pain. Don't be giving them fodder for their reply. Comparisons between dogs and babies/children/foetuses are best left out of the conversation.

simply simple

apart from the risk, I would also support the idea of having abortion as a right if done within first 3 months of pregnancy. Say if lady doesnt want ot have a baby, faces no major complications while pregnant but goes into acute depression after the baby is born knowing all the reponsibilities that came along with it, as you know what lies ahead only when a month of motherhood has passed really.
We eat chicken, lamb etc etc, why is it legal to eat those who are someone elses babies and not having this right which is a big responsibility. and it wont be fair on the kids too who are born to parents who were not ready for it. What if they neglect them throughout his life or would just not be able to give him their fair attention?
Abortion is cruel? I think not allowing abortion is cruel for both baies and mother.

Condoms were also not received well in its initial times, changes are necessary but not nicely received initially.

MaxWig wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate, but not giving a **** about someone is different to wishing someone out of existence, which is where they're coming from.

So it's fine to let a child be born into an utterly miserable situation or to parents who don't want it? How very humane. I would rather have an abortion than bring a child I can't give a good quality of life to into the world. And as painful as that might be, I think it's the far more decent thing to do.

MaxWig wrote: »

We put dogs down because they are animals not simply because they are in pain.

Maybe you think of it that way, but when I made the decision to have my dog put down, it was because I didn't want to watch her die a slow and painful death from poisoning. The fact that she was "just" an animal didn't come into it. She was a living, breathing, sentient creature who was experiencing a tremendous amount of pain and the compassionate thing to do was to have her put down.

Obliq

MaxWig wrote: »

"Once again I find myself saying; if my dog was in total renal failure and I left it to die over a period of days I would be, rightly, done for animal cruelty, but they expect us to sit back and watch babies born without kidneys to die in agony"

Playing into their hands with this guff; We put dogs down because they are animals not simply because they are in pain. Don't be giving them fodder for their reply. Comparisons between dogs and babies/children/foetuses are best left out of the conversation.

I'll give my opinion as and where I choose actually. Y'know, we ARE actually animals? We are animals with a over inflated sense of self-importance, especially in the "first world". That we have the LUXURY of expecting our children to live is a product of human ingenuity (medical science) and dumb luck at being born in a country where children generally don't starve.

The comparison between a barely sentient human foetus being in agony and a dog being in agony is just fine, and perfectly valid in terms of discussing a compassionate end for A LIFE (human or otherwise) not worth living.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Maybe you think of it that way, but when I made the decision to have my dog put down, it was because I didn't want to watch her die a slow and painful death from poisoning. The fact that she was "just" an animal didn't come into it. She was a living, breathing, sentient creature who was experiencing a tremendous amount of pain and the compassionate thing to do was to have her put down.

Why you decided to put your dog down is of very little consequence.
The fact that it was a dog that you put down, however, is of significant consequence.
Having a dog put down doesn't carry 15 years in prison funnily enough.
There are millions of dogs served up in restaurants each year, served with a variety of delicious sauces.
There are one or two more distinctions between dogs and human progeny that I'm searching for here, but damn it, they're escaping me now.

Obliq wrote: »

I'll give my opinion as and where I choose actually. Y'know, we ARE actually animals? We are animals with a over inflated sense of self-importance, especially in the "first world". That we have the LUXURY of expecting our children to live is a product of human ingenuity (medical science) and dumb luck at being born in a country where children generally don't starve.

The comparison between a barely sentient human foetus being in agony and a dog being in agony is just fine, and perfectly valid in terms of discussing a compassionate end for A LIFE (human or otherwise) not worth living.

Its perfectly fine in comparing agony, and the human emotional response to suffering.
I fail to see any further significance.
Yes, we're animals, and so are dogs, and dolphins. Again, conceded.

Your philosophical ponderings are certainly accurate.

Yes, we're lucky to have been born in the developed world. Again, well spotted.

Your point about a dog in renal failure would be more suited to a discussion on palliative care for the elderly.

I'm sure you would be equally practical about decisions regarding your parents, were they suffering. Y'know, renal failure etc.

loveisdivine

MaxWig wrote: »

Your point about a dog in renal failure would be more suited to a discussion on palliative care for the elderly.

I'm sure you would be equally practical about decisions regarding your parents, were they suffering. Y'know, renal failure etc.

I'll take this one, as I agree with everything Obliq has said anyway.

My (not particularly elderly) mother has been on deaths door for a number of years now. Every few months we are told she only has a few weeks left to live. But every time she pulls through and goes on to live for another couple of months before she's in hospital again with only "a few weeks to live".
At this point, my mothers quality of life is very low. She spends her time back and forth from the hospital. I am perfectly capable of making the rational decision in my head that she would be better off out of this misery now. Her illness is going to kill her, slowly. I would much rather it did it quickly.

So yeah, its possible to be practical about humans/relatives/parents aswell as just dogs :rolleyes: Which means that its certainly possible to make practical decisions about a foetus.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I'll take this one, as I agree with everything Obliq has said anyway.

My (not particularly elderly) mother has been on deaths door for a number of years now. Every few months we are told she only has a few weeks left to live. But every time she pulls through and goes on to live for another couple of months before she's in hospital again with only "a few weeks to live".
At this point, my mothers quality of life is very low. She spends her time back and forth from the hospital. I am perfectly capable of making the rational decision in my head that she would be better off out of this misery now. Her illness is going to kill her, slowly. I would much rather it did it quickly.

So yeah, its possible to be practical about humans/relatives/parents aswell as just dogs :rolleyes: Which means that its certainly possible to make practical decisions about a foetus.

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear about your mother.

However, apparently its not possible to be practical, as your mother is still alive.

A thought experiment is one thing, real life is evidently different.

Obliq

MaxWig wrote: »

Its perfectly fine in comparing agony, and the human emotional response to suffering.
I fail to see any further significance.
Yes, we're animals, and so are dogs, and dolphins. Again, conceded.

Your philosophical ponderings are certainly accurate.

Yes, we're lucky to have been born in the developed world. Again, well spotted.

Your point about a dog in renal failure would be more suited to a discussion on palliative care for the elderly.

I'm sure you would be equally practical about decisions regarding your parents, were they suffering. Y'know, renal failure etc.

Just about to head off to earn a few quids so really haven't time or energy to deal with your condescension. In answer to your last incisive and biting point, I agree with loveisdivine and in fact am under strict instruction from my parents to be as practical as possible under those circumstances, invoking their living-wills if necessary.

As a person who rears hens and kills them for food, I am perhaps not as far removed from the practicalities of where our double/triple/etc. standards of human moralising take us, as some others are. I have no problem with you or anyone else having a debate about the ethics of human compassion and the relative weight of worth given to humans in different stages of life/parts of the world, but I do hope you won't tell me (or anyone else) what we can/cannot bring up in our debates. Thanks in advance. Laters..

Unbelievable

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/anger-over-vigil-for-life-leaflets-given-to-pupils-in-dublin-primary-school-1.1432477

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Maybe you think of it that way, but when I made the decision to have my dog put down, it was because I didn't want to watch her die a slow and painful death from poisoning. The fact that she was "just" an animal didn't come into it. She was a living, breathing, sentient creature who was experiencing a tremendous amount of pain and the compassionate thing to do was to have her put down.

Exactly. While I'm aware that my dog is an animal a decision to end her suffering would not be because she is an animal that's broken and should be got rid of; it's about making sure that the ones you love the most suffer the least. The idea that it's somehow preferable to leave a human, especially a newborn infant who has no other experience of the world, dying in agony is repugnant to me. What it says to me is that in some people's eyes humans are somehow worth less than a dog, that we should make them suffer more.

"We ended our dogs agony because it's an animal, but this human baby born without kidneys should have its life prolonged for as long as we can so it can suffer as much as possible. Because human life is sacred." Well, I'm sorry but imo that opinion is just sick.

MaxWig wrote: »

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear about your mother.

However, apparently its not possible to be practical, as your mother is still alive.

A thought experiment is one thing, real life is evidently different.

Her mother would probably be a candidate for Dignitas*, but then loveisdivine would be prosecuted for helping her to end her pain.

*Were that loveisdivine's mother's wish.

Morag

Calls for resignation of Eddie Shaw, former spokesman for Cardinal Desmond Connell, as chairman of school board

Minutes of the meeting seen by The Irish Times state that “on Friday the 7th of June, a notice for a pro-life vigil was put in the bags of three classes. The leaflets were intended for every bag in the school but some teachers either chose not to put them in and others forgot.

lazygal

I find it totally believable. As long as State funded schools are run by a private indoctrination institution, the religious will do whatever it takes to futher their agenda. The only unbelievable thing about that story is that people are kicking up a fuss, at the time of the 8th amendment school children were writing letters in religion class to the Taoiseach about abortion needing to be a consitutional issue with no fuss at all.

I find nothing the church does unbelievable any more.

lilmissprincess

I saw that last night. Disgraceful that the principal thought it appropriate - yes he says he didn't know what the content was, but if you are in charge of a school should you not be checking the content of external leaflets before handing them to children?

simply simple

Morag wrote: »

Unbelievable

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/anger-over-vigil-for-life-leaflets-given-to-pupils-in-dublin-primary-school-1.1432477

Rights of babies against the rights of babies

:mad:

lazygal

simply simple wrote: »

Rights of UNBORN babies against the rights of babies :mad:

fyp. One the unborn is born the concern for rights ends.

[Deleted User]

lilmissprincess wrote: »

I saw that last night. Disgraceful that the principal thought it appropriate - yes he says he didn't know what the content was, but if you are in charge of a school should you not be checking the content of external leaflets before handing them to children?

I'd say he'd have noticed quick sharp if there was porn on those leaflets, or any other very unsavoury inappropriate content for kids

I havent' been surprised by anything they've done since our RE teacher made us watch The Silent Scream in 4th year.

MaxWig wrote: »

Why you decided to put your dog down is of very little consequence.
The fact that it was a dog that you put down, however, is of significant consequence.
Having a dog put down doesn't carry 15 years in prison funnily enough.
There are millions of dogs served up in restaurants each year, served with a variety of delicious sauces.
There are one or two more distinctions between dogs and human progeny that I'm searching for here, but damn it, they're escaping me now.

How is it of little consequence? I put my dog down because she was suffering. It wasn't because she's "just" an animal. People turn off life support machines on family members all the time. I was there when my family turned off the life support machine on my grandmother because it was just prolonging the inevitable. As I said already, I'd rather have an abortion than have a child I couldn't give a decent quality of life to. It's about having compassion for others. Allowing a child to be born and suffer for a time before inevitably dying is not compassionate. The point is, we treat animals more humanely than we treat babies.

These people don't care about babies. If they did, they would be trying to stop people from travelling for abortions, which they don't. They'd actually give a rat's ass what happens to the children after they're born, which they don't. It's all about furthering an agenda and trying to make a political point, which I often find is pretty misogynistic at its core. There's absolutely nothing decent about what they do.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

How is it of little consequence? I put my dog down because she was suffering. It wasn't because she's "just" an animal. People turn off life support machines on family members all the time. I was there when my family turned off the life support machine on my grandmother because it was just prolonging the inevitable. As I said already, I'd rather have an abortion than have a child I couldn't give a decent quality of life to. It's about having compassion for others. Allowing a child to be born and suffer for a time before inevitably dying is not compassionate. The point is, we treat animals more humanely than we treat babies.

These people don't care about babies. If they did, they would be trying to stop people from travelling for abortions, which they don't. They'd actually give a rat's ass what happens to the children after they're born, which they don't. It's all about furthering an agenda and trying to make a political point, which I often find is pretty misogynistic at its core. There's absolutely nothing decent about what they do.

Its of little consequence, because it was a dying dog. I'm sorry to be callous, but nobody gives a f*ck what you do with your dying dog. I'm pretty sure you could have eaten it, but not certain.
You didn't put it down because it was just an animal, you were permitted to put it down because it was just an animal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a dog lover, and losing a dog, or any pet is heart-breaking.

But I find it hard to believe that you don't see the distinction between a dog and human life.

I find the comparisons distasteful

MaxWig wrote: »

Its of little consequence, because it was a dying dog. I'm sorry to be callous, but nobody gives a f*ck what you do with your dying dog. I'm pretty sure you could have eaten it, but not certain.
You didn't put it down because it was just an animal, you were permitted to put it down because it was just an animal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a dog lover, and losing a dog, or any pet is heart-breaking.

But I find it hard to believe that you don't see the distinction between a dog and human life.

I find the comparisons distasteful

Nobody should give a f*ck what I do with my own body either, and I find their intense interest and insistence on interfering as a means to further their own agenda distasteful.

And I don't see any distinction when showing compassion to living creatures.

MaxWig wrote: »

Its of little consequence, because it was a dying dog. I'm sorry to be callous, but nobody gives a f*ck what you do with your dying dog. I'm pretty sure you could have eaten it, but not certain.
You didn't put it down because it was just an animal, you were permitted to put it down because it was just an animal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a dog lover, and losing a dog, or any pet is heart-breaking.

But I find it hard to believe that you don't see the distinction between a dog and human life.

I find the comparisons distasteful

There are no comparisons being drawn between dogs and people except to say that we are obliged to let people suffer and die in pain even though a human life is supposed to be much more sacred than a dog's.

Why is it cruel to let an animal to suffer agony before death, but not a human? Answer me that. Surely if there is any obligation to ensure a peaceful passing it should be an obligation toward humans?