Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Igotadose · 21-05-2019 1:38pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Hmmm, it isn't Vicky Wall that these parents are accusing of being economical with the truth.

Your other comment says more about you than anyone and in case there's a doubt that's not a compliment.

No, they're (soon) to be litigating with their doctors. I stand by my statement, pro-life advocates are notoriously economical with the truth. And Vicky Wall's a heartless person for inflicting suffering on that baby. We've only got Vicky Wall's word on her discussion with her doctor - who knows what really went on? I'm never going to believe someone claiming to be pro-life at first blush, too much history of lying there.

Plumbthedepths · 21-05-2019 1:41pm

political analyst wrote:

Doesn't what that doctor said to Vicky Wall indicate an indecently enthusiastic attitude to abortion in the medical profession, i.e. putting pressure of women with pregnancies that are believed to have FFA to have their pregnancies terminated?

That's not pressure, that's informing a patient of an option. How the option was delivered ie tone, language is a separate issue. The expectant woman makes the final decision in abortion.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 2:04pm

Igotadose wrote: »

No, they're (soon) to be litigating with their doctors. I stand by my statement, pro-life advocates are notoriously economical with the truth. And Vicky Wall's a heartless person for inflicting suffering on that baby. We've only got Vicky Wall's word on her discussion with her doctor - who knows what really went on? I'm never going to believe someone claiming to be pro-life at first blush, too much history of lying there.

Are you done with your tar brush?

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 2:10pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

That's not pressure, that's informing a patient of an option. How the option was delivered ie tone, language is a separate issue. The expectant woman makes the final decision in abortion.

I agree with everything you say except for the last sentence. While expectant mothers should definitely have the final decision, it should be an informed decision, informed by every option and all possible information, including that there are more tests available which may be worth waiting for.

If they decide to go ahead with the abortion before these other tests having been informed about them, then yes they have no-one to blame but themselves. However, I sincerely doubt a patient would ignore the advice of a doctor if that doctor was adamant enough or advised strongly the patient to await the outcome of other tests.

The enquiry, if the report is made public, should tell us more and who was to blame.

....... · 21-05-2019 2:13pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

....who was to blame.

Why do you need someone to "blame".

A medical tragedy has happened.

Instead of playing the blame game would it not be a better use of energy to put processes in place that minimise the chance of this happening again going forward?

shesty · 21-05-2019 2:16pm

I understood from the articles I have read around the last few days, that there is a first test and ultrasound, if the first test shows a problem but the ultrasound is clear, then the hospit recommend waiting for the results of the second test.Or at least the Coombe and Rotunda do.Holles St apparently don't.And it seems to have happened in this case-clear ultrasound and first test came back for Edward's Syndrome.If you read the IT article I posted a few hundred posts back, apparently the couple also brought up the possibility of mosaicism and were told no, not a chance of that by their doctor and no need to wait.

Firstly it begs the question, how competent is that doctor, and secondly, once more it raises massive questions around hospital procedures and processes, not least being that different hospitals do things in different ways.

Plumbthedepths · 21-05-2019 2:16pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote:

I agree with everything you say except for the last sentence. While expectant mothers should definitely have the final decision, it should be an informed decision, informed by every option and all possible information, including that there are more tests available which may be worth waiting for.

There was no need to extrapolate on the last sentence as the final decision is still the woman's.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 2:19pm

....... wrote: »

Why do you need someone to "blame".

A medical tragedy has happened.

Instead of playing the blame game would it not be a better use of energy to put processes in place that minimise the chance of this happening again going forward?

There may be litigation and an enquiry will determine if there is a case for that, that was the point I was making. If the hospital or doctors were negligent, the parents can rightly sue, its the right thankfully of anyone who is a victim of medical negligence to sue and it doesn't matter if its abortion, delivery of a baby or other examples.

Apart from that, yes processes may have to be reviewed so there is no repeat.

SusieBlue · 21-05-2019 2:39pm

political analyst wrote: »

From May last year:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/i-felt-abandoned-by-this-country-mother-who-had-termination-in-uk-36892200.html

Doesn't what that doctor said to Vicky Wall indicate an indecently enthusiastic attitude to abortion in the medical profession, i.e. putting pressure of women with pregnancies that are believed to have FFA to have their pregnancies terminated?

That would read to me Vicky was given an option and chose not to take it, and was at peace with her decision with no regrets.
That's great for her.

Many women who had to travel abroad were not so lucky & had to go through a traumatic life event in a foreign country without the support of their loved ones, at great financial cost, and had to have their baby's ashes shipped home via courier to boot.

I feel sorry for those women but I don't feel sorry for Vicky.
Ireland supported & looked after Vicky, it didn't look after Amy Callahan (the other woman in the article).

Candamir · 21-05-2019 2:46pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I don't like hair splitting as much as the next person, but..
The 12 week limit was what was agreed by:
1. The Citizens Assembly which was a microcosm of Irish Society (not possible to put everyone in Ireland into the one room).
2. Received the backing of the majority in a referendum. People voted for or against based on this limit. If it was a 6 week limit, more may have voted for, if it was for example a 20 week limit, people might have voted differently. People voted based on a well advertised 12 week limit.
3. Politicians from across the board in the elected Dail and Seanad supported the 12 week limit in legislation.

I don't think you can get more of a consensus or agreement than that. This wasn't one person or a dictator imposing a 12 week limit, it came initially from the Citizens Assembly, was part of a referendum campaign which gained a majority and was put into law by legislators representing constituents. By any standard that is the agreement of society and anything else is hair splitting.

Great. Let’s not split hairs. The referendum removed the equal right to life of the foetus, so that we can give precedence to a pregnant woman’s right to life. It didn’t define ‘when life begins’, as you claimed.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about? Would you say "ah sure these things happen" or would you consider pursuing legal action?

Let’s make the analogies a bit more ‘like with like’ shall we.

If you were told the chance of having breast cancer based on test A was 99.9%, and you could choose to have a lumpectomy (which removes only a small part of the Brest) and you would be cancer free, or you could wait 2-3 weeks later for a test that is almost 100% but st that stage owing to the aggressive nature of your tumour, you will have to have a full mastectomy followed by chemo and/or radiotherapy, then which would you choose?

Women make the choice to terminate regularly on the basis of testing other than amniocentesis. There is nothing wrong, unethical or illegal about this. The idea that they can ‘just wait’ doesn’t take into account the increased physical risks of later term abortion, and the psychological harm that may happen.

Again, the issue in this case was if the testing process, reliably etc was properly explained, and not the decision to depend on CVS.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We will have to wait for the enquiry.

What a great idea. A little different to your earlier ‘this is negligence without a doubt and implying that the doctors have broken the law’

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Are you done with your tar brush?

Touché. I certainly hope you are.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If they decide to go ahead with the abortion before these other tests having been informed about them, then yes they have no-one to blame but themselves. However, I sincerely doubt a patient would ignore the advice of a doctor if that doctor was adamant enough or advised strongly the patient to await the outcome of other tests.

The enquiry, if the report is made public, should tell us more and who was to blame.

It’s not a doctors job to be adamant about how a patient decides to proceed with their treatment. It’s up to the doctor to inform them of the options and risks, and let the patient decide for themselves.
On the one hand posters are condemning doctors for allegedly ‘pushing’ patients towards one treatment option, and on the other telling them that that’s exactly what they should be doing.

political analyst · 21-05-2019 5:38pm

Igotadose wrote: »

If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.

Inflicting pain - how?! Vicky Wall didn't cause her unborn child to have an abnormality.

political analyst · 21-05-2019 6:56pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

That would read to me Vicky was given an option and chose not to take it, and was at peace with her decision with no regrets.
That's great for her.

Many women who had to travel abroad were not so lucky & had to go through a traumatic life event in a foreign country without the support of their loved ones, at great financial cost, and had to have their baby's ashes shipped home via courier to boot.

I feel sorry for those women but I don't feel sorry for Vicky.
Ireland supported & looked after Vicky, it didn't look after Amy Callahan (the other woman in the article).

Had to?

Who said they had to have their pregnancies terminated? That was something they chose.

SusieBlue · 21-05-2019 7:11pm

political analyst wrote: »

Had to?

Who said they had to have their pregnancies terminated? That was something they chose.

But they didn’t choose to do it abroad.
They had no choice. The Irish healthcare system wouldn’t look after them so they were forced to travel to a country with a bit more compassion.

I note how you selectively quoted there and didn’t reply to the bit about parents having to have their children’s ashes shipped home by courier.

political analyst · 21-05-2019 11:13pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

But they didn’t choose to do it abroad.
They had no choice. The Irish healthcare system wouldn’t look after them so they were forced to travel to a country with a bit more compassion.

I note how you selectively quoted there and didn’t reply to the bit about parents having to have their children’s ashes shipped home by courier.

They did have a choice - between having an abortion abroad and seeing their pregnancies through. If they'd done the latter then they wouldn't have had to have their deceased children's ashes "shipped" home - they wouldn't have had to have the remains cremated at all.

SusieBlue · 21-05-2019 11:33pm

political analyst wrote: »

They did have a choice - between having an abortion abroad and seeing their pregnancies through. If they'd done the latter then they wouldn't have had to have their deceased children's ashes "shipped" home - they wouldn't have had to have the remains cremated at all.

Imagine the pain of knowing your baby will die at birth, and having to go through the motions of strangers asking questions and congratulating you for months on end? Carrying a child you know will die?
Have a bit of compassion, for goodness sake.

No one should have to carry that burden unless they choose to, and find comfort from it, as Vicky did.
In any other civilized country a choice would be given and BOTH women’s decisions would be respected. Both would be looked after.
Thankfully no other woman will ever have to go through that trauma again, and not a moment too soon.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 21-05-2019 11:39pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

The 8th amendment would have given a legal right to life to this poor defenceless innocent human life, and prevented his or her killing. Sad but true. All the right on lefty liberal 'woke' brigade : are you proud now?

That's proper authentic bottom of the barrel sludge right there. Using this tragedy to push your agenda, you should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you, really...

I can only imagine what the parents are going through. There are risks involved for the more comprehensive test, contrary to popular belief. It's not an easy decision to make, I have been there myself. Do you proceed with the second test find out if your child may have a serious disability (It's also not 100% accurate), risking a miscarriage or do you take a risk and hope your child is born healthy? Not many here would be as brave to make that decision as they would like to think.

Sheep breeder · 22-05-2019 6:44am

Amirah Elegant Minus wrote: »

That's proper authentic bottom of the barrel sludge right there. Using this tragedy to push your agenda, you should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you, really...

I can only imagine what the parents are going through. There are risks involved for the more comprehensive test, contrary to popular belief. It's not an easy decision to make, I have been there myself. Do you proceed with the second test find out if your child may have a serious disability (It's also not 100% accurate), risking a miscarriage or do you take a risk and hope your child is born healthy? Not many here would be as brave to make that decision as they would like to think.

Very good post, two words come to mind, compassion and understanding.

....... · 22-05-2019 9:18am

political analyst wrote: »

They did have a choice - between having an abortion abroad and seeing their pregnancies through. If they'd done the latter then they wouldn't have had to have their deceased children's ashes "shipped" home - they wouldn't have had to have the remains cremated at all.

Its not very compassionate to expect a woman to go through with a doomed pregnancy simply because you personally do not agree with abortion.

Its simply inflicting needless suffering. On the woman, her family, the unborn child who will have developed a nervous system and will experience pain upon both birth and death.

Why would you WANT people to go through that suffering?

lazygal · 22-05-2019 9:29am

I posted earlier in this thread about my experience following prenatal testing, where we had an initial high risk result for T18 and had to await amniocentesis results which were conclusive (and thankfully showed there was no abnormality). Amniocentesis is now a relatively unrisky procedure. The stats on miscarriage come from a time when there wasn't the same level of scanning we have now, and doctors would listen for a heartbeat and try to avoid the foetus when inserting a needle to obtain amniotic fluid.

During the waiting period I became more and more convinced I would continue the pregnancy even if the worst was diagnosed. This was a decision I came to without pressure, because we had the means to travel if we needed to. This all happened at the height of the repeal campaign and the horrible prolife banners outside Holles Street were just awful to have to navigate.

I am 100% prochoice and I would never ever tell anyone they should do what I would have done. I voted for repeal and I believe the current legislation is far too restrictive. I hope access to abortion will be increased over time.

We have a healthy eighth month old and that is something I am thankful for every single day. It isn't fair to tell other people they're imposing needless suffering on a baby should they decide to continue a pregnancy. There are complex abnormalities and you can't know exactly what will happen during pregnancy and delivery.

I know this is a bit rambling but it's not nice to tell people they're making their baby suffer and so on. Until you are faced with considering decisions like this you can't know what you would do. I always thought I would know exactly what I'd do, until I really had to consider it in a non-abstract way.

political analyst · 03-06-2019 4:00pm

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/imperfect-system-and-cruel-barriers-still-stopping-women-access-abortion-928382.html

An added issue that has arisen after the legislation for terminations in the case of a fatal foetal anomaly diagnosis, is increased stigma.

“The stigma now of travelling is much worse because if the baby’s diagnosis was bad enough you’d be looked after here. There are assumptions around that,” said Ms Cullen, who experienced her own loss after a fatal diagnosis.

What assumptions could they be?

03-06-2019 4:49pm

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/imperfect-system-and-cruel-barriers-still-stopping-women-access-abortion-928382.html

What assumptions could they be?

Going by the other statements in the article by the person, just that an assumption nothing else.

blueser · 03-06-2019 5:17pm

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

This is the case we've all been waiting for.

Have we? Nice of you to take it on yourself to speak on other peoples behalf.

mvl · 12-06-2019 7:13pm

looking forward for more clarity on what process was followed here - after seeing this in media today "the medical practitioners who signed off on the abortion never examined or met the mother her in advance of the abortion."

AulWan · 12-06-2019 7:37pm

What difference would that have made?

What would an examination of the mother shown that was different to the tests results? A doctor can't diagnose a FFA by putting their hands on someone's bump.

Doctors sign of on medical decisions all the time on the basis of test results without examining patients hands on. I don't see this as any different. They're grasping at straws trying to make a case, in my opinion.

pinkyeye · 12-06-2019 7:44pm

mvl wrote: »

looking forward for more clarity on what process was followed here - after seeing this in media today "the medical practitioners who signed off on the abortion never examined or met the mother her in advance of the abortion."

After seeing pictures of Tobin all over that article that's all I need to know. :rolleyes:

Church on Tuesday · 12-06-2019 7:56pm

judeboy101 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/holles-st-review-termination-of-pregnancy-4639179-May2019/

interesting one. Docs obviously fecked up test but mother didn't want a dodgy baby

That's an incredibly glib way of putting things.

But look, you either have class or you don't.

mvl · 12-06-2019 7:57pm

AulWan wrote: »

What difference would that have made?

What would an examination of the mother shown that was different to the tests results? A doctor can't diagnose a FFA by putting their hands on someone's bump.

Doctors sign of on medical decisions all the time on the basis of test results without examining patients hands on. I don't see this as any different. They're grasping at straws trying to make a case, in my opinion.

Why would the process allow someone who's not even their doctor to signoff for a pregnancy termination ?

It would matter in my view because I'd hope their own doctor would be more invested in getting things right on their behalf (or guide the patients for best possible outcome).

uptherebels · 12-06-2019 9:48pm

mvl wrote: »

Why would the process allow someone who's not even their doctor to signoff for a pregnancy termination ?

It would matter in my view because I'd hope their own doctor would be more invested in getting things right on their behalf (or guide the patients for best possible outcome).

The issue is that the doctors have to "examine" the woman to sign off on FFA. The point now, is that is viewing tests results for a condition that can't be determined by a physical examination enough? Because this is what Tobin et al are going to argue.
It's a failed arguement already imo, but they will try and try

mvl · 13-06-2019 12:37am

uptherebels wrote: »

The issue is that the doctors have to "examine" the woman to sign off on FFA. The point now, is that is viewing tests results for a condition that can't be determined by a physical examination enough? Because this is what Tobin et al are going to argue.
It's a failed arguement already imo, but they will try and try

but lets step back a bit ...

- if the maternity medical services in Ireland are provided by a GP and/or a hospital obstetrician, these roles have responsibility for the mother/fetus well being (they would implicitly examine the woman earlier in the pregnancy) - why shouldn't they be one of the parties required when authorizing a termination ?

imo, whoever executes additional tests required in a pregnancy (including to prove FFA) can be seen as a third party; and as any third party, they should rather provide input/recommendation to such decision, instead of being authorized to approve the actual termination.

Hardcharger · 13-06-2019 1:50am

I voted NO last year because I knew this would happen.

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

The doctors who killed the baby directly and the nurses who assisted and anyone else who works in the hospital involved are murderers.

Anyone who voted Yes last year and whooped and cheered like they won an All Ireland in those stupid black repeal jerseys is a murderer.

Simple as that.

Hardcharger · 13-06-2019 1:58am

....... wrote: »

Its not very compassionate to expect a woman to go through with a doomed pregnancy simply because you personally do not agree with abortion.

Its simply inflicting needless suffering. On the woman, her family, the unborn child who will have developed a nervous system and will experience pain upon both birth and death.

Why would you WANT people to go through that suffering?

Because killing an innocent child is murder that's why.

A toddler that is terminally ill or a terminally ill or disabled adult or indeed anybody with pain or suffering from depression or even bad luck in life could be killed on compassionate reasons based on your logic.

In the last century bureaucrats in Russia decided that people who were class enemies should be rooted out and exterminated. In Germany the mentally ill the disabled the sick gays and non Aryans were murdered by gas. This is was done by ordinary people blinded by an ideology that convinced them this was good.

You cloak your desire to kill in "compassion"

The disposal of human beings like they are waste.

Utterly sick and evil

gctest50 · 13-06-2019 2:14am

Hardcharger wrote: »

..........

The disposal of human beings like they are waste.

.........

Some human beings should dispose of themselves though, for example : incels

They go on like :

An incel last week/yesterday/everyday : all the women go for 10% of the men with bmws n gym bodies
n waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah women owe the incels

They'll do anything for attention and to get at women ( cos they see them as one big unit that's out to get them not out to get them

Hardcharger · 13-06-2019 2:18am

gctest50 wrote: »

Some human beings should dispose of themselves though, for example : incels

They go on like :

They'll do anything for attention and to get at women ( cos they see them as one big unit that's out to get them not out to get them

A foetus is alive innocent and human.
It is an innocent human life.
Abortion takes an innocent human life.
The taking of an innocent human life is murder.
Ergo abortion is murder

gctest50 · 13-06-2019 2:21am

Welcome to boards new poster

gctest50 · 13-06-2019 2:24am

Hardcharger wrote: »

,..........

The taking of an innocent human life is murder.

....

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

uptherebels · 13-06-2019 2:50am

mvl wrote: »

but lets step back a bit ...

- if the maternity medical services in Ireland are provided by a GP and/or a hospital obstetrician, these roles have responsibility for the mother/fetus well being (they would implicitly examine the woman earlier in the pregnancy) - why shouldn't they be one of the parties required when authorizing a termination ?

imo, whoever executes additional tests required in a pregnancy (including to prove FFA) can be seen as a third party; and as any third party, they should rather provide input/recommendation to such decision, instead of being authorized to approve the actual termination.

It has to be two medical practitioners. For FFA the termination has to carried out by an obstetrician who has to be one of the 2 medical practitioners that signed off.
I believe that this wording is so that
It doesn't have to be the woman's obstetrician because hospitals can't guarantee the same staff and to allow for the possibility of a CO.
The issue here as far as I can see with the info available is the "examination". Not who signed off.
The point I believe that will be argued is that if they didn't meet the woman they couldn't have examined her, while ignoring that an examination doesn't necessarily mean a physical one.

uptherebels · 13-06-2019 2:53am

Hardcharger wrote: »

I voted NO last year because I knew this would happen.

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

The doctors who killed the baby directly and the nurses who assisted and anyone else who works in the hospital involved are murderers.

Anyone who voted Yes last year and whooped and cheered like they won an All Ireland in those stupid black repeal jerseys is a murderer.

Simple as that.

You voted no because you foresaw a medical misdiagnosis!

13-06-2019 4:11am

3 tests were done. The first 2 indicated FFA so parents decided on an abortion. The 3rd test results came back after the abortion giving a different result to the first 2. If the 3rd result came back before the abortion, would they still have aborted or taken the risk that 2 out of 3 were wrong?

A very sad case, compounded by guilt.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/td-tells-dail-that-family-at-centre-of-nmh-termination-case-believe-illegal-abortion-was-carried-out-930433.html

gctest50 · 13-06-2019 4:38am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...........

would they still have aborted or taken the risk that 2 out of 3 were wrong?

............

The 3rd is more accurate

“When the CVS test is taken, two different samples are sent. One for a rapid result which comes back within 48 hours and the other which can take up to two weeks and it is 100 per cent,” Prof Malone said.

The rapid test can give a false positive. “That’s why it is necessary to look at the total picture. If there is no ultrasound abnormality most laboratories recommend to wait for the full two weeks,” he explained.

“But some patients are not prepared to wait the two weeks and want to continue to termination. Generally we recommend that they get the total picture,” he added.

journal.ie

Sunny Disposition · 13-06-2019 6:54am

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact the 8th would have prevented this healthy baby's killing. The truth hurts sometimes.

Unfortunately Jaster is correct, we had laws that would have saved this child. I voted to allow abortion despite some reservations, but this certainly rocks my belief I did the right thing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-06-2019 7:01am

Hardcharger wrote: »

I voted NO last year because I knew this would happen.

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

The doctors who killed the baby directly and the nurses who assisted and anyone else who works in the hospital involved are murderers.

Anyone who voted Yes last year and whooped and cheered like they won an All Ireland in those stupid black repeal jerseys is a murderer.

Simple as that.

Are the people who voted yes but didn’t wear campaign jumpers or whoop not murderers? What are the parameters?

Atoms for Peace · 13-06-2019 7:07am

Guess I'm an evil child murderer so!

Wanderer78 · 13-06-2019 7:08am

Atoms for Peace wrote:

Guess I'm an evil child murderer so!

Me to, maybe prison won't be too bad, hope they have enough space for us all

Sunny Disposition · 13-06-2019 7:15am

Hardcharger wrote: »

I voted NO last year because I knew this would happen.

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

The doctors who killed the baby directly and the nurses who assisted and anyone else who works in the hospital involved are murderers.

Anyone who voted Yes last year and whooped and cheered like they won an All Ireland in those stupid black repeal jerseys is a murderer.

Simple as that.

This is the problem with debate on abortion, wild language and claims and a failure to see the point of view of anyone else. You’re as much of a flute as those doing the whooping in the black repeal jumpers.

Atoms for Peace · 13-06-2019 7:16am

The parents decided they didn't want to take the chance of having a baby with a life limiting condition, which is a right I fully support. There doesn't seem to be any suggestions of medical negligence, to me the story is being used to push a pro life agenda.

FutureGuy · 13-06-2019 7:44am

Hardcharger wrote: »

A foetus is alive innocent and human.
It is an innocent human life.
Abortion takes an innocent human life.
The taking of an innocent human life is murder.
Ergo abortion is murder

It's like you wrote down all the No taglines from last year and made a post from them.

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-06-2019 7:44am

gctest50 wrote: »

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Exactly.
One minutes pro abortionists are on about the calling of a 15 week old foetus as waste and the next they are saying it's ok to kill it and call it waste.(if it's disabled)

By their logic, this wasn't a baby, yet here are the parents saying it was and threating all sorts when it's called what the so called experts told us it was.

Hardcharger · 13-06-2019 8:00am

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Guess I'm an evil child murderer so!

If you support abortion - the deliberate murder of innocent babies - and you voted to legalize it and it is happening then yes you are.

You seem to be overjoyed. Absolutely evil and sick.

Hardcharger · 13-06-2019 8:02am

FutureGuy wrote: »

It's like you wrote down all the No taglines from last year and made a post from them.

If you can't refute my logic that's not my problem. That's yours. You support murdering innocent babies. It's evil and wrong and you know it but you don't care..

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2019 8:13am

Hardcharger wrote: »

I voted NO last year because I knew this would happen.

Odd use of "because" there as for me and many people I know we voted yes KNOWING that a case like this would likely happen.

So I am not sure the use of "because" is quite as honest as you might be pretending, especially when your further rhetoric is based on....

Hardcharger wrote: »

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

.... a complete misuse of terms in order to manufacture emotional rhetoric. You would do well to find out what the word "Murder" means and realise it does not actually apply here.

Hardcharger wrote: »

Simple as that.

I think the word is simplistic, not simple. What you are espousing here is false, emotive, simplistic nonsense. Not at all "simple".

Hardcharger wrote: »

Because killing an innocent child is murder that's why.

That is not the definition of "murder". The definition of murder is to "kill unlawfully". Abortion is legal. Therefore by definition it is not murder. Guess what? Water is wet, and married Bachelors do not exist either. Isn't language wonderful?

Hardcharger wrote: »

A toddler that is terminally ill or a terminally ill or disabled adult or indeed anybody with pain or suffering from depression or even bad luck in life could be killed on compassionate reasons based on your logic.

A toddler is a sentient human agent. So MY logic, rather than yours, would not allow for their termination on a whim. A fetus as 12 weeks however has all the sentience of a rock or a table leg. As such, aside from your emotive misuse of the word murder, I am not seeing a single argument from you as to why we might afford it moral or ethical concern.

As the rest of your post is merely a "godwin" I shall not reply to it unless you require it?

Hardcharger wrote: »

You cloak your desire to kill in "compassion"

You cloak your desire to call people killers in compassion more like. As ALL the people I know of who are pro-choice.... myself included..... actively strive to construct a society where no abortions actually ever happen. Through contraception, education, and social welfare supports we strive to make sure abortion is a choice no woman has to make.

You might want to pretend we love the killing. The fact is however that when we promote a choice for abortion we do so DESPITE us not wanting people to actually have one.

Hardcharger wrote: »

If you can't refute my logic that's not my problem. That's yours.

Then I guess the fact that I CAN do so, is yours

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments