Advertisement
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.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

8th Amendment

1…4243454748…65

Comments

  • #1322
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,115 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    So you'd not condone intentionally taking the unborn's life, despite the woman's clear direction?
    no I would not. She can terminate the pregnancy but I fail to see how subsequently killing the viable foetus/ child is denying her bodily intergirty. The child is no longer inside her. Bodily integrity doesn't apply any more.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1323
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    inocybe wrote: »
    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.

    Downs Syndrome while you're at it?


  • #1324
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    no I would not. She can terminate the pregnancy but I fail to see how subsequently killing the viable foetus/ child is denying her bodily intergirty. The child is no longer inside her. Bodily integrity doesn't apply any more.

    OK.

    She turns up at a Marie Stopes 'Clinic' in London, requests their services at 34 weeks. Would you sanction her request?


  • #1325
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,115 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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?
    your link most certainly is not an example of what was requested.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1326
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    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?

    TBH I couldn't be bothered as it has nothing to do with my question.

    Lets say its never happened in the past, anywhere on the planet.

    Would you condone killing an unborn baby at 34 weeks gestation, for the first time in human history?


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,115 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    OK.

    She turns up at a Marie Stopes 'Clinic' in London, requests their services at 34 weeks. Would you sanction her request?
    healthy mother and foetus? It's illegal in UK.
    There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:
    • if it's necessary to save the woman's life
    • to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
    • if there is substantial risk that the child would be born with serious physical or mental disabilities
    Source

    Noticing your inability to find actual cases of legal abortion at 34 weeks btw.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1328
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,115 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    TBH I couldn't be bothered as it has nothing to do with my question.

    Lets say its never happened in the past, anywhere on the planet.

    Would you condone killing an unborn baby at 34 weeks gestation, for the first time in human history?
    Second time answering, no I would not condone killing a viable foetus at 34 weeks gestation

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1329
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    healthy mother and foetus? It's illegal in UK.

    Source

    Noticing your inability to find actual cases of legal abortion at 34 weeks btw.

    But my hypothetical is giving you the power to sanction her request.

    Would you oblige?


  • #1330
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    You seem to think that suicidal persons can not be 'compos mentis'.
    Let me try to help you by repeating what I have already written, and underlining the important bits.
    I thought it was normal to operate on the general assumption that a person who intends to commit suicide is in need of psychiatric help, because suicide is not a rational response to a stress in the life of an otherwise healthy individual.

    The size of this thread could probably be halved if people just read more accurately.


  • #1331
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,977 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    TBH I couldn't be bothered as it has nothing to do with my question.

    Lets say its never happened in the past, anywhere on the planet.

    Would you condone killing an unborn baby at 34 weeks gestation, for the first time in human history?

    Would you condone terminating a pregnancy at 4 weeks to save the mothers life?


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

    What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too? :D

    Define the "choice" because even pro-choice can't agree on that point.


  • #1333
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Would you condone terminating a pregnancy at 4 weeks to save the mothers life?

    necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child are not abortions.


  • #1334
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Would you condone terminating a pregnancy at 4 weeks to save the mothers life?

    Yes, as I've said on numerous occasions in this thread. Where there's a physical threat to the mother's life, a termination is justified, even if the unintentional consequence is the sad death of her baby...


  • #1335
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,977 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Yes, as I've said on numerous occasions in this thread. Where there's a physical threat to the mother's life, a termination is justified, even if the unintentional consequence is the sad death of her baby...

    So if the mothers life was in danger you would also terminate at 24 or 34 weeks?


  • #1336
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,115 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    But my hypothetical is giving you the power to sanction her request.

    Would you allow oblige?

    No. She could have a casearn or continue to term.

    Also noticed we're now referring to abortion at 34 weeks as hypothetical rather than actually happening as you originally claimed.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1337
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    am946745 wrote: »
    Define the "choice" because even pro-choice can't agree on that point.
    On what point? I don't think anyone has said that in order to be pro-choice one has to be prepared to see a healthy fetus killed at any point up to the date of natural birth. If they have, I'm sure you'll link to it. petunia

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1338
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    am946745 wrote: »
    Define the "choice" because even pro-choice can't agree on that point.

    The choice to not be pregnant. That's what bodily integrity means, despite Black Menorca's attempt to redefine it as infanticide.


  • #1339
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The choice to not be pregnant. That's what bodily integrity means, despite Black Menorca's attempt to redefine it as infanticide.

    Unless the women was raped.. Then she has that choice... Correct?

    So,we don't need 99.999% of the abortions that take place.


  • #1340
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,115 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    Unless the women was raped.. Then she has that choice... Correct?

    So,we don't need 99.999% of the abortions that take place.

    No one has said infanticide is permissible.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1341
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So if the mothers life was in danger you would also terminate at 24 or 34 weeks?

    The principal stands, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    SW wrote: »
    No one has said infanticide is permissible.
    Yes. They have avoided saying so by drawing an impossible, arbitrary line in the sand between being an infant and a clump of cells.

    At what point in gestation does infancy begin?


  • #1343
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    am946745 wrote: »
    Unless the women was raped.. Then she has that choice... Correct?

    So,we don't need 99.999% of the abortions that take place.

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    A woman should have the right to choose not to be pregnant. It's not rocket science.


  • #1344
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    No. She could have a casearn or continue to term.

    Also noticed we're now referring to abortion at 34 weeks as hypothetical rather than actually happening as you originally claimed.

    Thank you for the answer. You would deny the woman's request, as would I. Some common ground.

    It always was a hypothetical from my point of view.


  • #1345
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    am946745 wrote: »
    necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child are not abortions.

    The medical definition disagrees with you: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abortion


  • #1346
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Let me try to help you by repeating what I have already written, and underlining the important bits.



    The size of this thread could probably be halved if people just read more accurately.

    To refresh your memory, this is what you wrote:


    "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..."

    Perhaps we could indeed shorten the thread if people would stick to their area of expertise when pontificating on what they perceive to be fact.


  • #1347
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    am946745 wrote: »
    necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child are not abortions.

    Really?

    What's the treatment for HELLP syndrome?


  • #1348
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    To refresh your memory, this is what you wrote:


    "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..."
    We're not drafting airline leasing covenants here. We write accordingly, in the hope that our posts will be understood in light of common sense.

    That post clearly states that it refers to suicidal rape victims, and not suicidal MS sufferers near the end of their lives.

    Hope this clarifies your confusion.


  • #1349
    anothernight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭anothernight


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    The medical definition disagrees with you: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abortion

    You see, he's actually pro-choice, he just doesn't realise it. He's said before that he would support "delivering" the foetus to save the mother in cases where it's too early for the foetus to survive outside of the womb. That's clearly an abortion. But apparently it's all about the "intention" to kill, and if you're a doctor performing the termination with the "intention" to save the mother, it's not an abortion, even if it's at 10 weeks and you know full well that there is no chance of survival. Then it's not abortion, just... "early delivery".


  • #1350
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    We're not drafting airline leasing covenants here. We write accordingly, in the hope that our posts will be understood in light of common sense.

    That post clearly states that it refers to suicidal rape victims, and not suicidal MS sufferers near the end of their lives.

    Hope this clarifies your confusion.

    No confusion at all. You are of the opinion (without any qualification to form such an opinion) that a woman or child who has been raped and finds themselves pregnant could be suicidal could not be mentally competent.
    Are you are accusing psychiatrists who have certified that such a woman could be suicidal of either poor professional performance (please report to the Medical Council) or to be liars (I think the Gardai would be the appropriate outlet here)?


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    anothernight wrote: »
    You see, he's actually pro-choice, he just doesn't realise it. He's said before that he would support "delivering" the foetus to save the mother in cases where it's too early for the foetus to survive outside of the womb. That's clearly an abortion. But apparently it's all about the "intention" to kill, and if you're a doctor performing the termination with the "intention" to save the mother, it's not an abortion, even if it's at 10 weeks and you know full well that there is no chance of survival. Then it's not abortion, just... "early delivery".

    Its all about intention.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement