Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

amcalester · 19-05-2019 10:29am

stefanovich wrote: »

A lot of the time the issue the woman has it one of being judged by her family or peers.

Says the judge mental person.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:30am

Igotadose wrote: »

And in your opinion, is it mental illness?

Do tell the truth now, not like in the anti-vaxx thread. I know it can be difficult for you.

What I am saying is psychiatrists add or remove things from the DSM for political reasons rather than based on clinical studies so it is not to be trusted.

I'm not going to get into the wrongs or rights of homosexuality here. It's irrelevant.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:31am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

With a caveat that they adopt a child?

How many babies on the current list will you be adopting? You keep refusing to answer this question for some reason.

There are nearly no children up for adoption and rising rates of infertility. There are desperate couples who want children. There is much demand and no supply.

B0jangles · 19-05-2019 10:31am

stefanovich wrote: »

What I am saying is that the European solution to a declining population is mass immigration.

How do you feel about people immigrating here and then becoming pregnant -

would your very stringent rules apply to them?

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:32am

amcalester wrote: »

Says the judge mental person.

I am saying that abortion is wrong. A woman in a crisis pregnancy needs to be helped.

Igotadose · 19-05-2019 10:32am

dudara wrote: »

You are saying that you would incarcerate women against their will, in order that they remain pregnant and carry a child to term? Do you not understand how that sounds? How it makes women feel that they do not matter?

You need to understand that women don’t always want to be pregnant and can wish to end a pregnancy.

Stefanovich though, is just speaking what pro-life thinks. He'd be right at home in the Alabama state Senate in the US. Pro-life is always about demeaning and controlling women, it's profitable for the Evangelical movement in the US and a way to suppress minorites in the US South, like Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Georgia and whatever other misbegotten places are rushing to be the state that gets their case before the USSC.

shesty · 19-05-2019 10:32am

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospital-said-one-test-result-was-enough-before-termination-says-couple-1.3897113?mode=amp

I think this is the nub of the issue.Which brings us back to the long conversation about processes and the lack of standardised care in the Health system.

My heart is actually broken for this couple.I hope that their awful situation proves to be some sort of catalyst into pushing the health system to provide standardised maternity care across the country.But that it has to come to this, it makes me despair.

We are so bad at being proactive in this country.Everything is always reactive.

amcalester · 19-05-2019 10:32am

stefanovich wrote: »

I am saying that abortion is wrong. A woman in a crisis pregnancy needs to be helped.

You’ve been judging women all through this thread.

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-05-2019 10:38am

stefanovich wrote: »

There are nearly no children up for adoption and rising rates of infertility. There are desperate couples who want children. There is much demand and no supply.

Evidence for this claim please.

Also you still ignore my question of how many babies you yourself are trying to adopt?

shesty · 19-05-2019 10:39am

stefanovich wrote: »

I am saying that abortion is wrong. A woman in a crisis pregnancy needs to be helped.

Abortion is morally wrong.So wrong it will take a woman years to recover - if she ever does.
But then again, having seen the flicker of a heartbeat on a screen at six weeks, and then to be told it would all come to nothing....I don't know if I could cope with that.I don't know how I would react. Emotive language it may be, but to know that every movement I felt, every kick and wriggle would all come to nothing?And worse, I would have to go through labour and birth and go home with nothing....? God, it would break me. Almost as much as aborting would. I was lucky, I have three healthy babies.However it could be any of us that finds ourselves in this situation.I don't expect any pro-lifer to change their minds, but until they have stood in the shoes of - at the very least - a pregnant woman or couple, I can't help but feel that their opinion is not fully informed.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:40am

dudara wrote: »

You are saying that you would incarcerate women against their will, in order that they remain pregnant and carry a child to term? Do you not understand how that sounds? How it makes women feel that they do not matter?

You need to understand that women don’t always want to be pregnant and can wish to end a pregnancy.

Difficult question. I really would hate to incarcerate anyone against their will. I've experienced it first hand and it is gruesome.

If you made abortion illegal and provided optional support services for crisis pregnancies where people got help and support and a safe place then the rest would take care of itself.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:41am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Evidence for this claim please.

Also you still ignore my question of how many babies you yourself are trying to adopt?

Currently the only source of adoption is from abroad. Do some research.

19-05-2019 10:41am

Igotadose wrote: »

Stefanovich though, is just speaking what pro-life thinks. He'd be right at home in the Alabama state Senate in the US. Pro-life is always about demeaning and controlling women, it's profitable for the Evangelical movement in the US and a way to suppress minorites in the US South, like Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Georgia and whatever other misbegotten places are rushing to be the state that gets their case before the USSC.

Funny that a lot of the pro lifers think migrants should be treated as **** scraped of their shoes, and left to drown in the med. Have issues with vaccinations and are typically homophobic while claiming not to be religiously motivated in having their opinions.
Perhaps a chat with a mental health professional wouldn't be a bad idea for a few of them.

Igotadose · 19-05-2019 10:42am

shesty wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong.So wrong it will take a woman years to recover - if she ever does.

Nonsensical proof by blatant assertion.
shoutyourabortion.com is, anecdotally, a refutation of what you say.

This is the 1995 study that shows 95% of women do NOT regret their abortions. And 'morally wrong' is arbitrary.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128832#sec013

Caledonia · 19-05-2019 10:43am

Good to get an on topic point. But this happened in the National Maternity Hospital not in one of the smaller outposts.
Find report in Sunday Times disturbing : that in meeting after the results docs were not clear with the woman that the baby had been healthy.

shesty wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospital-said-one-test-result-was-enough-before-termination-says-couple-1.3897113?mode=amp

I think this is the nub of the issue.Which brings us back to the long conversation about processes and the lack of standardised care in the Health system.

My heart is actually broken for this couple.I hope that their awful situation proves to be some sort of catalyst into pushing the health system to provide standardised maternity care across the country.But that it has to come to this, it makes me despair.

We are so bad at being proactive in this country.Everything is always reactive.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:43am

shesty wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong.So wrong it will take a woman years to recover - if she ever does.
But then again, having seen the flicker of a heartbeat on a screen at six weeks, and then to be told it would all come to nothing....I don't know if I could cope with that.I don't know how I would react. Emotive language it may be, but to know that every movement I felt, every kick and wriggle would all come to nothing?And worse, I would have to go through labour and birth and go home with nothing....? God, it would break me. Almost as much as aborting would. I was lucky, I have three healthy babies.However it could be any of us that finds ourselves in this situation.I don't expect any pro-lifer to change their minds, but until they have stood in the shoes of - at the very least - a pregnant woman or couple, I can't help but feel that their opinion is not fully informed.

If you have been through the struggle of infertility, miscarriage and then finally are blessed with a pregnancy it is very hard to accept this disposable attitude with regard to human life.

Faugheen · 19-05-2019 10:46am

stefanovich wrote: »

If you have been through the struggle of infertility, miscarriage and then finally are blessed with a pregnancy it is very hard to accept this disposable attitude with regard to human life.

Then don't have an abortion if you don't want one.

nullzero · 19-05-2019 10:47am

shesty wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospital-said-one-test-result-was-enough-before-termination-says-couple-1.3897113?mode=amp

I think this is the nub of the issue.Which brings us back to the long conversation about processes and the lack of standardised care in the Health system.

My heart is actually broken for this couple.I hope that their awful situation proves to be some sort of catalyst into pushing the health system to provide standardised maternity care across the country.But that it has to come to this, it makes me despair.

We are so bad at being proactive in this country.Everything is always reactive.

If the contents of that article are accurate then it is a damning indictment of the medical personell involved.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:48am

DubInMeath wrote: »

Funny that a lot of the pro lifers think migrants should be treated as **** scraped of their shoes, and left to drown in the med. Have issues with vaccinations and are typically homophobic while claiming not to be religiously motivated in having their opinions.
Perhaps a chat with a mental health professional wouldn't be a bad idea for a few of them.

I am not religious at all. I came to my own conclusions about what is right or wrong.

I think NGOs facilitating the criminal exploitation of economic migrants is wrong.

I have issues with pharmaceutical companies who are some of the most corrupt and amoral companies out there. Some vaccinations are fine.

I do not have anything against gay people so I don't think I can be classed as homophobic. I do think some of the pride marches are too sexualised and the involvement of young children at them is suspect. I would class it as an "alternative" lifestyle than probably shouldn't be actively promoted.

volchitsa · 19-05-2019 10:48am

stefanovich wrote: »

Difficult question. I really would hate to incarcerate anyone against their will. I've experienced it first hand and it is gruesome.

That's why it's only legal for the most serious of reasons. "I don't like what you want to do" isn't likely to be one of them.

And whatever about the whole "unnatural lust" interpretations of homosexuality being referred to earlier, it'd be much harder to make a case that not wanting to be pregnant is unnatural or a sign of mental illness. A lot of women don't want to be pregnant in any given month or year.

stefanovich wrote: »

If you made abortion illegal and provided optional support services for crisis pregnancies where people got help and support and a safe place then the rest would take care of itself.

Simples, eh?

Enough to make one wonder why the Irish prolife movement never got around to providing the second part of that. Would have solved the problem, according to you.

19-05-2019 10:51am

kaymin wrote: »

I was replying to another poster who accused me of lying. But now that you said it, an absence of a heartbeat dictates when someone is dead so the corollary is that a heartbeat indicates when someone is alive.

I don't think that's strictly true (there is no legal definition of death, and I'm pretty sure the medical one is more complex), but let's not labour the point, and lets assume that a foetus is a living organism.

It is only a living organism in the same sense as a plant is a living organism; it can not be said to have a consciousness, which I think is pretty crucial.

What I was getting at was, it's so pointless to hang anything on whether the foetus has a functional circulatory system, or even a rudimentary heart. People on both sides of the debate often dwell on this, and it's just so pointless. We might as well be agonising over the stage at which the elbows are developed.

shesty wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospital-said-one-test-result-was-enough-before-termination-says-couple-1.3897113?mode=amp

I think this is the nub of the issue.Which brings us back to the long conversation about processes and the lack of standardised care in the Health system.

Wow, that adds a fair bit of seriousness to the topic.

Pretty damning, if the situation described is accurate (I presume it is)

19-05-2019 10:51am

shesty wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong.So wrong it will take a woman years to recover - if she ever does.
But then again, having seen the flicker of a heartbeat on a screen at six weeks, and then to be told it would all come to nothing....I don't know if I could cope with that.I don't know how I would react. Emotive language it may be, but to know that every movement I felt, every kick and wriggle would all come to nothing?And worse, I would have to go through labour and birth and go home with nothing....? God, it would break me. Almost as much as aborting would. I was lucky, I have three healthy babies.However it could be any of us that finds ourselves in this situation.I don't expect any pro-lifer to change their minds, but until they have stood in the shoes of - at the very least - a pregnant woman or couple, I can't help but feel that their opinion is not fully informed.

Plenty of women have no issues when they have an abortion including a few posters on this site and thread. Your claim doesn't stand up, unless of course your claiming to know how all women who have had an abortion actually feel.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:53am

Not a member of any prolife group so I don't think I can be held accountable.

The government has proven it cannot even provide basic healthcare services in this country.

We legalise abortion and now doctors are pushing it after inconclusive test results. No surprising seeing as the HSE is fundamentally incompetent.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:54am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is only a living organism in the same sense as a plant is a living organism; it can not be said to have a consciousness, which I think is pretty crucial.

How do you know when consciousness starts or even what it is? Is it electrical? Spiritual? How can you be so sure of a lack of something if you don't even know what it is?

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:55am

DubInMeath wrote: »

Plenty of women have no issues when they have an abortion including a few posters on this site and thread. Your claim doesn't stand up, unless of course your claiming to know how all women who have had an abortion actually feel.

I've seen someone drown kittens in a kitchen sink and they didn't break a sweat.

cournioni · 19-05-2019 10:57am

Faugheen wrote: »

Why is a woman having a termination (or indeed not having one) any of your business though?

That's the question I asked you.

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 10:58am

cournioni wrote: »

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

What do they do with the bodies after death? Are they buried or just disposed of as medical waste?

19-05-2019 10:59am

stefanovich wrote: »

How do you know when consciousness starts or even what it is? Is it electrical? Spiritual? How can you be so sure of a lack of something if you don't even know what it is?

What do you mean I don't know what it is? I think a very fine definition is that consciousness is a situation of wakefulness, sentience and self-consciousness.

It's usually possible to observe whether an animal has consciousness, and consciousness probably occurs along a spectrum.

Horses, I believe, have greater self-consciousness than dogs have; birds have almost none. Try putting all three animals in front of a mirror. A horse will immediately recognize himself, and look back at you to see whether you are an idiot. A dog might be initially surprised and then accept that it is only his reflection. A bird will go berserk. A foetus (hypothetically, wombs have no mirrors), would perceive absolutely nothing).

I defy anyone, though, to assert with any confidence that foetuses are conscious beings by the tri-fold definition above.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 11:02am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean I don't know what it is? I think a very fine definition is that consciousness is a situation of wakefulness, sentience and self-consciousness.

It's usually possible to observe whether an animal has consciousness, and consciousness probably occurs along a spectrum (horses, I believe, have greater self-consciousness than dogs have; birds have almost none). I am sure there is exhaustive scientific and psychological research on this available online.

I defy anyone, though, to assert with any confidence that foetuses are conscious beings by the above definition.

So a baby that is delivered at 8 months is not sentient? Being in the womb is a barrier to consciousness? Which one is it?

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-05-2019 11:02am

stefanovich wrote: »

What do they do with the bodies after death? Are they buried or just disposed of as medical waste?

You said earlier

If you made abortion illegal and provided optional support services for crisis pregnancies where people got help and support and a safe place then the rest would take care of itself.

Up until recently it was illegal in Ireland, it didnt stop women having abortions though. How do you think it would work now?

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 11:04am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said earlier

Up until recently it was illegal in Ireland, it didnt stop women having abortions though. How do you think it would work now?

Make it a criminal offense for an Irish woman to have an abortion anywhere.

19-05-2019 11:04am

stefanovich wrote: »

So a baby that is delivered at 8 months is not sentient? Being in the womb is a barrier to consciousness? Which one is it?

It's all three elements of the definition, taken together.

A foetus in the womb is almost certainly sentient, that is merely a question of electricity. Probably also wakeful. But self-conscious? There is no reason in the world to presume that.

Caledonia · 19-05-2019 11:05am

It does seem - perhaps in light of referendum and delivering change - the doctor involved jumped the gun. They weren’t examined by a second doctor even though papers signed. That’s fine technically but as mother says she raised the syndrome after her own research maybe the second doctor would have said ‘let’s pause here’; this baby is much wanted; they are informed, there is a chance. It would have balanced bias.

I think the second paragraph here about not doing anything differently is v strange.

From Sunday Times:
The couple say they were asked to attend a consultation at the hospital on April 4 at which they were told “some normal cells and abnormal cells” had been found in samples taken from the foetus, and claim they were not properly advised at that point that the baby had been healthy.

Haughey said the couple had been advised at the final meeting in April that the hospital would not have done anything differently, as it believed the chances of the baby being born healthy were still negligible.

19-05-2019 11:05am

stefanovich wrote: »

I've seen someone drown kittens in a kitchen sink and they didn't break a sweat.

And what's that got to do with abortion?

nullzero · 19-05-2019 11:05am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean I don't know what it is? I think a very fine definition is that consciousness is a situation of wakefulness, sentience and self-consciousness.

It's usually possible to observe whether an animal has consciousness, and consciousness probably occurs along a spectrum.

Horses, I believe, have greater self-consciousness than dogs have; birds have almost none. Try putting all three animals in front of a mirror. A horse will look at himself, and look at you to see whether you are an idiot. A dog might be initially surprised and then accept that it is only his reflection. A bird will go berserk. A foetus (hypothetically, wombs have no mirrors), would perceive absolutely nothing).

I defy anyone, though, to assert with any confidence that foetuses are conscious beings by the tri-fold definition above.

I think where this argument falls down is the potential for consciousness.
You cited plants as being analogous to a foetus earlier, a plant will never at any point of its potential life cycle develop consciousness, where as a fetous is typically going to reach that potential.

I'm not really interested in jumping in on the discussion properly but I think there is an important distinction between flora and fauna which you're not picking up on.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 11:06am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's all three elements of the definition, taken together.

A foetus in the womb is almost certainly sentient, that is merely a question of electricity. Probably also wakeful. But self-conscious? There is no reason in the world to presume that.

That could describe a newly born baby.

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-05-2019 11:09am

stefanovich wrote: »

Make it a criminal offense for an Irish woman to have an abortion anywhere.

Wow!

How would you police that?

Nobelium · 19-05-2019 11:10am

Caledonia wrote: »

Wondering how sick the doctors involved feel to have terminated a healthy baby. Like there are always outcomes to treatments but actually taking a life - ...not allowed to conscientiously object so they could be against abortion themselves.

Anyone that does that must get some kind of sick kick out of it.

volchitsa · 19-05-2019 11:10am

cournioni wrote: »

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

1,429,981 insane people in Ireland then?

cournioni wrote: »

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

Personally I find your post sickening, but so what really?

Are pacifists entitled to object to their taxes being used to pay an army?

OTOH, if abortion really is killing, what difference did it make for 30 years that women could perfectly legally, and openly, take themselves off to the UK to commit the exact same act? If it were not tax payer funded, how would that make it any less of your business? (If it's actually "killing" I mean).

Oh and why are moderators allowed to post like this, I thought people were being sanctioned for this sort of nonsense now? I've reported it. I'll be interested to see what happens.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 11:10am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wow!

How would you police that?

Implementation detail.

Faugheen · 19-05-2019 11:11am

cournioni wrote: »

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

I find your desire to control what a woman does with her own body and using the ‘taxpayer’ line as if it gives you that entitlement sickening if I’m honest.

Some women don’t want to continue with a pregnancy. They were given the right to end it in this country through a democratically held referendum which passed overwhelmingly.

cournioni · 19-05-2019 11:12am

amcalester wrote: »

You’ve been judging women all through this thread.

Some women have a lot to answer for, particularly when they use the line “women want control over their own bodies”, or “woman’s body, woman’s choice”. Sickening attitude.

Nobelium · 19-05-2019 11:13am

Faugheen wrote: »

No, why is a woman deciding what to do with her own body any of our business?

No one cares what someone else does to their own body, but in this case there is two bodies involved not one, and the child might also be a female.

19-05-2019 11:14am

nullzero wrote: »

I think where this argument falls down is the potential for consciousness.
You cited plants as being analogous to a foetus earlier, a plant will never at any point of its potential life cycle develop consciousness, where as a fetous is typically going to reach that potential.

I'm not really interested in jumping in on the discussion properly but I think there is an important distinction between flora and fauna which you're not picking up on.

I don't think that carries much weight. Mere potential is a weak threshold. If one of us is a woman and the other a man, there is a potential baby between us (I'm not flirting, you are). Potentialiaty is just about what could arise in the future. It can't be something to get overly precious about.

stefanovich wrote: »

That could describe a newly born baby.

https://www.livescience.com/41398-baby-awareness.html

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-05-2019 11:14am

stefanovich wrote: »

Implementation detail.

Elaborate please.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 11:17am

Faugheen wrote: »

I find your desire to control what a woman does with her own body and using the ‘taxpayer’ line as if it gives you that entitlement sickening if I’m honest.

Some women don’t want to continue with a pregnancy. They were given the right to end it in this country through a democratically held referendum which passed overwhelmingly.

And the divorce referendum will be passed also. Pregnancy and marriage is being assaulted. The fundamental unit on which society is built.

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-05-2019 11:17am

cournioni wrote: »

Some women have a lot to answer for, particularly when they use the line “women want control over their own bodies”, or “woman’s body, woman’s choice”. Sickening attitude.

Yeah, i mean imagine a woman wanting control over what happens to her body, shocking isnt it? :rolleyes:

Nobelium · 19-05-2019 11:17am

uptherebels wrote: »

Again I have already explained this to you. If you believe I am wrong please highlight where these instances are considered the same.

Again you haven't . . you claimed several times now to know an entire societies view . . who exactly elected you to be spokesperson for an entire society ?

cournioni · 19-05-2019 11:18am

Faugheen wrote: »

I find your desire to control what a woman does with her own body and using the ‘taxpayer’ line as if it gives you that entitlement sickening if I’m honest.

Some women don’t want to continue with a pregnancy. They were given the right to end it in this country through a democratically held referendum which passed overwhelmingly.

No, I want to stop a senseless killing of a life, same way I would want a senseless killing of a baby in its cot. If I’m helping to fund that, then it absolutely is my business to voice my distaste for it (to say the least).

A woman can do what she wants with her own body, not the body of the baby in it.

stefanovich · 19-05-2019 11:18am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't think that carries much weight. Mere potential is a weak threshold. If one of us is a woman and the other a man, there is a potential baby between us (I'm not flirting, you are). Potentialiaty is just about what could arise in the future. It can't be something to get overly precious about.

https://www.livescience.com/41398-baby-awareness.html

You disproved your own point with your link. If the baby is self conscious at birth surely it is self conscious just before.

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments