8th Amendment

Penny Tration · 18-06-2015 10:00PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand your quesiton - babies are often born at 34 weeks - it's called birth. How would that be an abortion?

She's saying that you condone a viable fortus/baby being killed/terminated (choose your own terms) at 34 weeks, INSTEAD of being 'aborted' safe and sound by caesarean or other means.

PopePalpatine · 18-06-2015 10:00PM

At that stage abortions are only sought (with very few exceptions) because of a fatal foetal abnormality, a severe handicap or a serious threat to the mother's health. I'm OK with that.

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:03PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

So at 34 weeks you'd condone an abortion when the baby could be delivered alive and healthy?

can you give any examples where a healthy child was aborted at 34 weeks given that most counties don't allow it past 24 weeks?

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:04PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

At that stage abortions are only sought (with very few exceptions) because of a fatal foetal abnormality, a severe handicap or a serious threat to the mother's health. I'm OK with that.

What if the baby is healthy? Would you deny a woman an abortion, entailing the intentional taking of the baby's life?

Therefore denying her bodily integrity.

inocybe · 18-06-2015 10:04PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Apologies for confusing you.

Let me be very clear in my question.

If a mother, at 34 weeks gestation, sought an abortion, resulting in the intentional death of her unborn. You could foresee yourself condoning such an action, over delivering the baby girl, alive and well?

Well if she'd had the abortion she asked for, when she asked for it, you wouldn't need to be asking this question. Still you ask about late abortions constantly, you acknowledge implicitly that early abortions are preferable.

PopePalpatine · 18-06-2015 10:07PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

What if the baby is healthy? Would you deny a woman an abortion, entailing the intentional taking of the baby's life?

Therefore denying her bodily integrity.

It doesn't matter, I'd prioritise the woman's health.

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:07PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

What if the baby is healthy? Would you deny a woman an abortion, entailing the intentional taking of the baby's life?

Therefore denying her bodily integrity.

you realise that's nonsense you're talking.

How is delivering the child by caesaran denying the woman her bodily integrity? She's no longer pregnant!

volchitsa · 18-06-2015 10:08PM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

She's saying that you condone a viable fortus/baby being killed/terminated (choose your own terms) at 34 weeks, INSTEAD of being 'aborted' safe and sound by caesarean or other means.

I don't believe that happens, nor is it necessary - late term abortions, as popepalatine just said are always for serious problems of some sort, and I don't see how a layperson could list all possible serious complications, which is why I said I'm happy to leave that to doctors to decide.

But if the question is whether I'd also be happy for a doctor to refuse to kill a healthy 34 week fetus in the absence of any major health issues for the mother,then yes, if the doctor was happy that medically there was no need for the baby not to be saved, then I'd be fine with that.

But IME women who have carried a pregnancy to 34 weeks are desperate to save it, not to terminate it. It's a silly question, especially from someone who claims that 8 weeks terminations are just the same as 34 week ones.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:10PM

SW wrote: »

can you give any examples where a healthy child was aborted at 34 weeks given that most counties don't allow it past 24 weeks?

http://www.latetermabortion.net/late-term-abortion-in-the-United-States.html

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:12PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It doesn't matter, I'd prioritise the woman's health.

You guys are struggling with this one, bigtime.

You'd allow the abortion at 34 weeks, yes?

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:13PM

inocybe wrote: »

Well if she'd had the abortion she asked for, when she asked for it, you wouldn't need to be asking this question. Still you ask about late abortions constantly, you acknowledge implicitly that early abortions are preferable.

She's asking for the first time at 34 weeks. Yes or no? Your call.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:15PM

SW wrote: »

you realise that's nonsense you're talking.

How is delivering the child by caesaran denying the woman her bodily integrity? She's no longer pregnant!

You're not getting my question.

The others seems to be grasping it though.

inocybe · 18-06-2015 10:15PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

http://www.latetermabortion.net/late-term-abortion-in-the-United-States.html

Did you even read your own link? It's very sensible actually

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:17PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

http://www.latetermabortion.net/late-term-abortion-in-the-United-States.html

bravo on the quick 'google and paste'.

Nowhere does it list any cass of legally performed abortions at 34 weeks where both mother and child were healthy at time of approval.

Care to try again?

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:17PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't believe that happens, nor is it necessary - late term abortions, as popepalatine just said are always for serious problems of some sort, and I don't see how a layperson could list all possible serious complications, which is why I said I'm happy to leave that to doctors to decide.

But if the question is whether I'd also be happy for a doctor to refuse to kill a healthy 34 week fetus in the absence of any major health issues for the mother,then yes, if the doctor was happy that medically there was no need for the baby not to be saved, then I'd be fine with that.

But IME women who have carried a pregnancy to 34 weeks are desperate to save it, not to terminate it. It's a silly question, especially from someone who claims that 8 weeks terminations are just the same as 34 week ones.

Therefore denying the direct wishes of the adult woman. Denying her bodily integrity.

We got there in the end.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:18PM

SW wrote: »

bravo on the quick 'google and paste'.

Nowhere does it list any cass of legally performed abortions at 34 weeks where both mother and child were healthy at time of approval.

Care to try again?

No need to. Where does it specifically state my scenario would not happen?

In your own time.

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:18PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

You're not getting my question.

The others seems to be grasping it though.

Care to explain how performing a caesarn is denying the woman bodily integrity?

ProfessorPlum · 18-06-2015 10:20PM

conorh91 wrote: »

OK, lets pursue this approach then.

So our suicidal friend walks into the High Court and makes a petition for bankruptcy, and is asked to pay the fee of €650 to the Official Assignee for costs and outlays. Our friend shrugs and says 'I can't pay, nor am I in a state of mind to complete the petition, but you must make me bankrupt, or I will kill myself'.

What happens next? Should the Court assume this person is acting rationally, and suspend the procedures? No, someone should compassionately take the man aside and advise him to get professional help from a psychiatrist or counsellor.

Of course, this is not a comparison with pregnancy, just an illustration that the logical response to a major stress is not to threaten suicide. A threat or intention to kill oneself should not be regarded as a rational response to a pregnancy, especially where that individual has already been raped, and is suffering a complex series of presumably harrowing emotions.

I don't see how you can have been raped, be threatening suicide, and still be considered compos mentis. Run that one by me, would you...

Where is your psychiatric qualification from Conor? You seem to think that suicidal persons can not be 'compos mentis'.
In fact that's not true. People who go abroad to avail of assisted suicide have to be mentally competent, yet they want to take their own life.
just because you think suicide is not a rational decision doesn't make it so in another's persons situation.
In fact, it's often as people are coming out of deep depression and thinking rationally that they consider suicide.

I see from earlier in the thread that you also find statistics somewhat challenging.

oscarBravo · 18-06-2015 10:21PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Therefore denying the direct wishes of the adult woman. Denying her bodily integrity.

Your attempts at Jesuitry are, frankly, transparent and pathetic.

A woman's bodily integrity is not defined by the life or death of the unborn; it is defined by her desire or otherwise to be pregnant.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:23PM

SW wrote: »

Care to explain how performing a caesarn is denying the woman bodily integrity?

If she clearly requests an abortion, intentionally killing her unborn baby.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:24PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your attempts at Jesuitry are, frankly, transparent and pathetic.

A woman's bodily integrity is not defined by the life or death of the unborn; it is defined by her desire or otherwise to be pregnant.

If my question hits a nerve, you can dodge it. The choice is yours.

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:26PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

No need to. Where does it specifically state my scenario would not happen?

In your own time.

really? you seriously want to pick up that shovel?

Very well.

Nowhere in it does it state that the following will not happen:

children of Irish emigrants will be aborted by lottery
children with blue eyes will be aborted on every other Tuesday in months beginning with 'J'
children of Twilight fans will be aborted
children of Prius drivers will be aborted

yep. Really well thought out there.

inocybe · 18-06-2015 10:27PM

Since Black Menorca couldn't be bothered to read through his own linked page

Despite the fact that a patient, her personal physician, and an abortion provider may all agree that a termination would be in the best interest of a mother's health, there is much controversy from organizations, politicians, certain religious sectors, legislators, and other governmental entities. They do not want or believe that women should have the right to make decisions about a pregnancy that ultimately could be detrimental to her health. It is understood that the 9th amendment of the United States Constitution allows us to exercise this freedom. Laws regarding late term abortion restrict women from exercising their right to terminate their pregnancies have escalated at a record pace over the past two years. This leaves women with only a handful of abortion providers in the U.S. to turn to in one of the most difficult times in their lives.

One of the most important freedoms we have is the freedom to make decisions about how our bodies are treated. Men and women make the decision to poison their bodies with tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, and even legal drugs such as chemotherapy medications to possibly extend their life a few weeks or months (though side effects kill people on a daily basis) but there is no contention from anyone regarding the use of these toxic drugs which have a high probability of harm. Yet when it comes to a woman being able to save her life due to medical complications or fetal abnormalities or deformities that are incompatible with life, other people and the government want to make decisions that prevent a woman from exercising her right.

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:28PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

If she clearly requests an abortion, intentionally killing her unborn baby.

the child is removed from her body, how does not committing infanticide deny her bodily integrity?

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:31PM

SW wrote: »

really? you seriously want to pick up that shovel?

Very well.

Nowhere in it does it state that the following will not happen:

children of Irish emigrants will be aborted by lottery

children with blue eyes will be aborted on every other Tuesday in months beginning with 'J'

children of Twilight fans will be aborted

children of Prius drivers will be aborted

yep. Really well thought out there.

You've lost me there.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:33PM

inocybe wrote: »

Since Black Menorca couldn't be bothered to read through his own linked page

Despite the fact that a patient, her personal physician, and an abortion provider may all agree that a termination would be in the best interest of a mother's health, there is much controversy from organizations, politicians, certain religious sectors, legislators, and other governmental entities. They do not want or believe that women should have the right to make decisions about a pregnancy that ultimately could be detrimental to her health. It is understood that the 9th amendment of the United States Constitution allows us to exercise this freedom. Laws regarding late term abortion restrict women from exercising their right to terminate their pregnancies have escalated at a record pace over the past two years. This leaves women with only a handful of abortion providers in the U.S. to turn to in one of the most difficult times in their lives.

One of the most important freedoms we have is the freedom to make decisions about how our bodies are treated. Men and women make the decision to poison their bodies with tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, and even legal drugs such as chemotherapy medications to possibly extend their life a few weeks or months (though side effects kill people on a daily basis) but there is no contention from anyone regarding the use of these toxic drugs which have a high probability of harm. Yet when it comes to a woman being able to save her life due to medical complications or fetal abnormalities or deformities that are incompatible with life, other people and the government want to make decisions that prevent a woman from exercising her right.

Indeed it does.

SW asked for examples and there you have them.

So, has everyone replied?

One person would not sanction the abortion of a healthy baby at 34 weeks gestation. The rest of you?

ProfessorPlum · 18-06-2015 10:35PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

You've lost me there.

That's hardly surprising.

Black Menorca · 18-06-2015 10:35PM

SW wrote: »

the child is removed from her body, how does not committing infanticide deny her bodily integrity?

So you'd not condone intentionally taking the unborn's life, despite the woman's clear direction?

Delirium · 18-06-2015 10:35PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

You've lost me there.

Just listing other scenarios not listed in the link you provided. Which based on your 'well they don't say it doesn't happen' rationale, are all currently happening in the US.

So, would you care to try again and provide links to actual cases of legal abortions carried out at 34 weeks where both mother and child were healthy prior to abortion?

inocybe · 18-06-2015 10:38PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Indeed it does.

SW asked for examples and there you have them.

So, has everyone replied?

One person would not sanction the abortion of a healthy baby at 34 weeks gestation. The rest of you?

A healthy baby of an ill mother. Obvious which you would choose. In the context of your own link, which mentions serious health issues for the mother, fatal foetal abnormalities, yes absolutely I would. Not that I consider myself in a position to sanction or not, because neither you nor I get to make the choice.

8th Amendment

Comments