Yes the topic header is very tabloid. But i can't think of any way to put it better.
This woman was in severe pain and asked REPEATEDLY for an abortion. Her request was not granted because 'there was a heartbeat'.
To be more clear, the law in Ireland regarding abortion is an absolute mess. Abortion was banned, but then a supreme court decision allowed abortions in cases where the mother's life was threatened. No government since has stepped up to clarify the law, so doctors are left to make the choice themselves, with the law being able to back up any decision that they make. It absolves the doctors of any responsibility for their actions, and is harmful for both women and fetuses (depending on your view) because doctors are left with nothing but their own subjective views and vague law on which to base their choices.
The article in the guardian that i have linked to makes the situation even clearer and even more disturbing: "Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said: 'As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can't do anything.'
The doctors KNEW that they were unable to save the baby, and yet still refused the woman an abortion. This seriously highlights the need for instant action on the part of the Irish government.
TBH this case is the fault of Irish law, not catholic law, but as long as the refusal to allow abortions continues, more and more women will needlessly suffer, and in the worst cases, die.
My view on abortion in general is as follows: Why is this simple moral choice being debated so much. Allow suffering, or do something about it? Its pretty simple to me. I thought i would leave this in the OP seeing as how the subject of abortion is clearly related and not exactly off topic.
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
On November 15 2012 00:14 danl9rm wrote: There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
I'm inclined to attribute this to clinical malpractice rather than anti-abortion adherents. There are provisions in the law that allow abortion in the case of the mother's life being threatened. In this case it would seem to me that the medical staff present misjudged her complications as being non-life threatening, with disastrous consequences.
Will await more details coming out with interest. Irish abortion law is ridiculous, granted but it seems people are jumping on the bandwagon a little too prematurely given one case. The law should have been changed aeons ago, not left and re-evaluated when tragedy strikes.
When I read the title I though she just got one really bad paper-cut and bled to death from it. Kill seems like a weird verb to apply to an inanimate object. Gave me a laugh anyway +1 OP.
On November 15 2012 00:14 danl9rm wrote: There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
First you say that you we don't have enough details to know what really happened. Then you go on to tell us exactly what didn't happen based on your own (bolded) speculation.
I will reserve judgement for the time being. I read the article and nowhere did it say that the fetus caused the disease that killed her nor that having an abortion would have saved her. Only the husband claims it would have saved her and unless he is a doctor or someone that knows, his word doesn't mean much.
On November 15 2012 00:25 Poltergeist- wrote: I will reserve judgement for the time being. I read the article and nowhere did it say that the fetus caused the disease that killed her nor that having an abortion would have saved her. Only the husband claims it would have saved her and unless he is a doctor or someone that knows, his word doesn't mean much.
I think this is smart. On the one hand, the doctors may have failed to identify that she would likely die without an abortion, in which case the law wasn't the problem. On the other, whether she had an abortion or not may not have saved her life. More information is needed before we can arrive at any useful conclusions.
I'm quite surprised the doctors didn't think of Sepsis related to the unborn baby. Especially so when it became clear it would be a miscarriage anyway. This definately isn't the first case in medical history of Septicemia due to an unborn baby, and the symptoms she showed are corresponding, especially so when her heartrate went up by alot, and I suspect (although not said so in the article) breathing fast and shallow.
In my opinion this is a mistake on the doctor's part, in part due to bad legislation.
On November 15 2012 00:14 danl9rm wrote: There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
First you say that you we don't have enough details to know what really happened. Then you go on to tell us exactly what didn't happen based on your own (bolded) speculation.
Then close the thread because it's pointless.
The point of my post was to speculate, because that's all we can do here. Otherwise, like I said, close the thread.
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote: So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Baby was dead 4+ days before the mother. Also, they aren't murdering millions of babies. Abortion is banned in Ireland. I think that summarily covers why nothing in your post is valid to the discussion.
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote: So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
In your rush to sound like an internet hardass you failed to read the OP or the provided link. The 17 week old fetus died before the mother did. But really, it's more important to post your opinions in the most caustic and inflammatory way without letting ugly things like "what actually happened" get in the way.
Two links I found just looking around. The crux of the matter appears to be the relative ambiguity of the provision allowing abortion to protect a woman's life As it would pertain to this case, essentially the Doctors weren't sure whether this particular case would have legally allowed them to abort. That's with the information I currently have of course, there may be more to come.
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote: So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Murdering millions of babies? You mean abortion? You need to ask yourself the question when a baby really becomes a human instead of being super close minded and say: "we need to save every potential baby" because if you go that way you could also say - masturbation is murder -which is silly of course
On November 15 2012 00:36 Wombat_NI wrote: Two links I found just looking around. The crux of the matter appears to be the relative ambiguity of the abortion to protect a woman's life provision. As it would pertain to this case, essentially the Doctors weren't sure whether this particular case would have legally allowed them to abort. That's with the information I currently have of course, there may be more to come.
Yes i think that this is the main problem. It is not really case of allowing abortion vs not allowing them; rather a case of ROI needing to clarify their law and sort it out (preferably to allow abortions, but that's just my view).
Laws pertaining to issues this important MUST be clear and obvious, so doctors are able to make the right decisions and be held accountable for wrong ones.
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote: So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Murdering millions of babies? You mean abortion? You need to ask yourself the question when a baby really becomes a human instead of being super close minded and say: "we need to save every potential baby" because if you go that way you could also say - masturbation is murder -which is silly of course
This is obviously the crucial part of the whole abortion debate. Any limit placed on when during a pregnancy an abortion may or may not take place seems completely arbitrary. At what point does life begin? Personally i'm inclined to say that once a baby is breathing air, their life has begun, but this kind of argument comes entirely down to opinion, so its almost impossible to resolve.
Dunno about that plop. A baby can survive after only 6 months of gestation with aid of severe medical aid. You've essentially said that the age of a fetus does not matter at all and only emergence from the womb matters. However that is clearly wrong.
Honestly I'm going to leave this thread because I support the commonly accepted practices of abortion and can think of no examples where I would convince someone of my views or another person could convince me of their views. All I will see in this thread is: 1) Stupid comments 2) Anti Abortion arguments 3) Pro Abortion arguments 4) Outrage comments.
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote: So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Murdering millions of babies? You mean abortion? You need to ask yourself the question when a baby really becomes a human instead of being super close minded and say: "we need to save every potential baby" because if you go that way you could also say - masturbation is murder -which is silly of course
This is obviously the crucial part of the whole abortion debate. Any limit placed on when during a pregnancy an abortion may or may not take place seems completely arbitrary. At what point does life begin? Personally i'm inclined to say that once a baby is breathing air, their life has begun, but this kind of argument comes entirely down to opinion, so its almost impossible to resolve.
that debate moves both directions really. is it determined based on dependance on the mother? because that is not necessarily womb intensive. is it based on when the egg and sperm meet? is it some arbitrary moment in between? this is the problem that should be at the core of the abortion debate, but it seems that most people end up tangled in a women's rights debate.
that said, this is egregiously off topic, but since the details of the OP are unclear I'm not sure what else should be said. the article and OP doesn't have the full information needed to form an educated opinion
On November 15 2012 00:47 Probe1 wrote: Dunno about that plop. A baby can survive after only 6 months of gestation with aid of severe medical aid. You've essentially said that the age of a fetus does not matter at all and only emergence from the womb matters. However that is clearly wrong.
Honestly I'm going to leave this thread because I support the commonly accepted practices of abortion and can think of no examples where I would convince someone of my views or another person could convince me of their views. All I will see in this thread is: 1) Stupid comments 2) Anti Abortion arguments 3) Pro Abortion arguments 4) Outrage comments.
Your comment is fair enough, but it reinforces the view that setting a clear time where the foetus becomes a baby is impossible. Where do you draw the line?
And i like the fact that you will leave this thread, but if everybody did the same based on the fact that their mind could not be changed the internet would be a very different place
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote: So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Murdering millions of babies? You mean abortion? You need to ask yourself the question when a baby really becomes a human instead of being super close minded and say: "we need to save every potential baby" because if you go that way you could also say - masturbation is murder -which is silly of course
Of course masturbation is murder; don't you know that every sperm is sacred and great? We wouldn't want to make God irate, not when so much good sperm is needed in your neighborhood. It would be such a waste. + Show Spoiler +
Being against abortions but for allowing them based on the health of the mother is nonsense. It should just be available - period. If you don't think so, why ever allow it except if the baby is also dead (like in this case, I was talking the wider debate.)
Anyway sad and tragic story I feel for her family.
Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
Depends on how old it is. If it's still just a jumble of cells with no consciousness then well, yeah...if it's old enough to be conscious then of course not.
Also, such legislation does nothing to particularly curb abortion apart from among the poor. Irish women, from both the North and South can travel over to clinics in England if they have the requisite cash.
The topic title is misleading. All that is known so far is that she had a miscarriage and died. There is an investigation ongoing to determine whether her death was caused by the miscarriage.
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
On November 15 2012 01:28 Kasu wrote: The topic title is misleading. All that is known so far is that she had a miscarriage and died. There is an investigation ongoing to determine whether her death was caused by the miscarriage.
It's not misleading. Septicaemia following a miscarriage is not uncommon at all. It usually happens if the uterus is not completely emptied. It can even happen after birth if the entire placenta doesn't come out either. The chance that the septicaemia occurred because of the miscarriage is quite high.
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
1: you got them the wrong way round. pro-life is pro abortion. 2. Your use of the word 'he' when describing a baby whose sex has not been identified may suggest something about your views on the matter. 3. Would you make an innocent woman pay twice by firstly being raped, and secondly having to give birth to a child she never wanted or asked for?
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
The entire Pro-life stance is hypocritical on a day to day basis such that it's best to not even debate the topic anymore because they're so far gone.
George Carlin says it best "preborn, you're fine, preschool you're fucked".
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
1: you got them the wrong way round. pro-life is pro abortion. 2. Your use of the word 'he' when describing a baby whose sex has not been identified may suggest something about your views on the matter. 3. Would you make an innocent woman pay twice by firstly being raped, and secondly having to give birth to a child she never wanted or asked for?
No you have them the wrong way around. Pro life is anti abortion, pro the life of the child. Pro choice is pro women's right to choose to have an abortion.
In general I'm pretty against abortion but I would think that just about anyone could agree that it should be an option when the woman's life is at risk because of the pregnancy. Crazy people...
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
Yes, everyone can just drop their things to travel out of country for an abortion.
I have a better question, why is the divide between reality and fiction so hard to understand? The idea that a person can't abort a lump of cells is crazy... That's why the "trimester" kicks in and we only allow abortions up to a point. After that abortions should be regarded as only if the womans life is in danger. This gives a 3 month cushion to handle mistakes while not actually operating on a living "life" but a grouping of cells.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
So I have a question. Why don't people have more money?
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
1: you got them the wrong way round. pro-life is pro abortion. 2. Your use of the word 'he' when describing a baby whose sex has not been identified may suggest something about your views on the matter. 3. Would you make an innocent woman pay twice by firstly being raped, and secondly having to give birth to a child she never wanted or asked for?
No you have them the wrong way around. Pro life is anti abortion, pro the life of the child. Pro choice is pro women's right to choose to have an abortion.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
Everything is easy when you have the money Of course she would have spent the money, but I bet she didn't know she was in that much trouble
Please change the thread title, the current is populist and inaccurate. Instead its appropriate to choose a more neutral one, something like 'discussion of the irish anti abortion law'
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
Read my post that's up a little bit, Irish women do do this.
"But she said 'I'm sorry, unfortunately it's a Catholic country' and it's the law that they can't abort when the foetus is live."
This quote really made me cringe. Forcing a religion on people as law? This isn't the 1700's the church should be separated from the government. Why should everyone in a country be forced to live under popular beliefs? It's important to respect beliefs but they shouldn't be making laws on society.
On November 15 2012 01:56 Crazyahmed wrote: Please change the thread title, the current is populist and inaccurate . Why did you not write 'baby saved by....'. I think you get the point
Instead its appropriate to choose a more neutral one, something like 'discussion of the irish anti abortion law'
Please read the article. Once again, this is a case where abortion law prevented a definite miscarriage from being aborted because it had a heartbeat.
This was not a "baby born/mother dies" story, this is a "mother not allowed to abort dying baby" story.
On November 15 2012 01:56 Crazyahmed wrote: Please change the thread title, the current is populist and inaccurate . Why did you not write 'baby saved by....'. I think you get the point
Instead its appropriate to choose a more neutral one, something like 'discussion of the irish anti abortion law'
Please read the article. Once again, this is a case where abortion law prevented a definite miscarriage from being aborted because it had a heartbeat.
This was not a "baby born/mother dies" story, this is a "mother not allowed to abort dying baby" story.
Irish law specifically allows abortions to protect mothers life.
On November 15 2012 01:56 Crazyahmed wrote: Please change the thread title, the current is populist and inaccurate . Why did you not write 'baby saved by....'. I think you get the point
Instead its appropriate to choose a more neutral one, something like 'discussion of the irish anti abortion law'
Please read the article. Once again, this is a case where abortion law prevented a definite miscarriage from being aborted because it had a heartbeat.
This was not a "baby born/mother dies" story, this is a "mother not allowed to abort dying baby" story.
Please read the thread. There are exceptions allowed in the RoI for women who are at risk of death, not applied in this case because, I would hazard a guess the Doctors were either clinically incompetent, fearful of prosecution due to ambiguity in the law, or were morally uncomfortable with abortion so personally decided to pursue with their course of action. None of which are particularly nice to think about.
On November 15 2012 02:07 Jockmcplop wrote: Actually you are all wrong regarding Irish law. The exception to Irish anti abortion law is a part of European law, and not specific to Ireland. This is why there is so much confusion.
So the Irish law completely bans abortions but the EU mandates that abortions are manditory if a woman's life is at risk?
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
The entire Pro-life stance is hypocritical on a day to day basis such that it's best to not even debate the topic anymore because they're so far gone.
George Carlin says it best "preborn, you're fine, preschool you're fucked".
i dont understand where you are getting this supposed hypocrisy from
It's a matter of interpretation but the addition of the words 'with the due regard to the equal right to life at the mother' could be used to justify life-saving abortions, or prevent prosecution of Doctor's who carry out the procedure.
However it's not been properly legislated for by the Dail, hence this whole mess, i.e that there exists a getout for things like this, but it's very unclear and confusing for both medical practitioners and the public alike.
On November 15 2012 01:13 logikly wrote: Those of us who are pro choice have these exceptions and its a shame that she wasn't allowed to have it. life of mother, Rape, Incest. I know me and every other conservative i know supports these cases. Its a true shame that both were lost. But allow me to ask you something. Those of you who are pro choice do you regard the human fetus as nothing more than a fingernail or a kidney that you can dispose of?
I assume you meant "pro life", as "pro choice" is usally considered being "pro abortion".
In which case I have a question for you. Why is it OK to take the life of a baby if he was product of rape? Aren't you making an innocent unborn baby pay, with his own life, for the crimes of his father?
Disclamer: I myself don't have a clear cut oppinion on the topic, since any cutoff we can disscuss is essentially arbitrary. But I've always been curious about that specific point for pro-life people.
The entire Pro-life stance is hypocritical on a day to day basis such that it's best to not even debate the topic anymore because they're so far gone.
George Carlin says it best "preborn, you're fine, preschool you're fucked".
i dont understand where you are getting this supposed hypocrisy from
It's that they spend so much time worrying about the life of the baby but once it's born the baby is on it's own.
Someone posted the video from Carlin that really puts it into a comedic presentation. Add that to the "religious rape" argument where it's god will to be pregnant and that the baby shouldn't be aborted based on that isn't hypocritical but insulting while some who are pro-life say that under rape circumstances it's different ... then murdering... a plump of cells?
Im see myself more as a liberal then a conservative in general. But In cases of abortion im pretty conservative.
IMO Abortion should only be legal if its an case of rape, incest, or if the baby is confirmed to be in major pain, or will be stricken will a disease that will make the baby have a short life, or majorly limit its capabilities to "live"
If the baby brings the mother's life in danger, its also a valid reason I think.
(not meaning like blind or not able to walk/work, since there are millions of happy people with those conditions)
I kinda feel like its morally wrong just to abort a baby because it doesnt fit into your life atm. In the western would it seems like a trend to fuck around untill you're like 25, then you meet your love of your life and then you get a baby. Any "accidents" before that just gets thrown in the trash.
If it takes away your job, tough luck. im sure your son/daughter will thank you later.
If you suppose that killing a fetus is murder, why is it okay to murder fetuses produced by rape or incest? Why is it okay to kill a baby to save the mother? Why is murder acceptable in some cases but not in others? The only logically consistent views are either abortion in all cases or abortion in no cases.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
Read my post that's up a little bit, Irish women do do this.
is it really that cost prohibitive to travel to england from ireland? i am just basing my judgement on regional flight prices here in NA.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
So I have a question. Why don't people have more money?
no need for smart ass replies. but also, where do they plan on getting the money to support the child if they do give birth?
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
They actually do. I heard that more and more women from denmark travel to either sweden or norway? Please dont burn me on it, been awhile since I read the article. But they travel to one of those countries to perform abortion because they allow abortion at a later time. If they find out its the wrong gender.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
Read my post that's up a little bit, Irish women do do this.
is it really that cost prohibitive to travel to england from ireland?
Well, you have to pay for the procedure too, think it's a couple of thousand pounds sterling.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
So I have a question. Why don't people have more money?
no need for smart ass replies. but also, where do they plan on getting the money to support the child if they do give birth?
I think that's the idea of a mistake and then the idea of abortion.
On November 15 2012 01:49 a176 wrote: so i have a question. why don't women travel to pro-abortion countries for their abortion? say, in much the same way for same-sex marriage.
Read my post that's up a little bit, Irish women do do this.
is it really that cost prohibitive to travel to england from ireland?
Well, you have to pay for the procedure too, think it's a couple of thousand pounds sterling.
ah right, i was assuming public health care/free abortion.
On November 15 2012 02:20 TheRealArtemis wrote: Im see myself more as a liberal then a conservative in general. But In cases of abortion im pretty conservative.
IMO Abortion should only be legal if its an case of rape, incest, or if the baby is confirmed to be in major pain, or will be stricken will a disease that will make the baby have a short life, or majorly limit its capabilities to "live"
If the baby brings the mother's life in danger, its also a valid reason I think.
(not meaning like blind or not able to walk/work, since there are millions of happy people with those conditions)
I kinda feel like its morally wrong just to abort a baby because it doesnt fit into your life atm. In the western would it seems like a trend to fuck around untill you're like 25, then you meet your love of your life and then you get a baby. Any "accidents" before that just gets thrown in the trash.
If it takes away your job, tough luck. im sure your son/daughter will thank you later.
Equally if you have no willing sex partners and a choice between masturbation or raping some girl and then forcing her to carry the pregnancy to completion then I'm sure the baby born from the sperm that would have ended up in your hand had you jacked off will thank you for raping the girl. There are billions of potential lives in your hands and all of them, if they become actual lives, will have value. But that doesn't mean we should start treating them as such.
On November 15 2012 02:22 ZeaL. wrote: If you suppose that killing a fetus is murder, why is it okay to murder fetuses produced by rape or incest? Why is it okay to kill a baby to save the mother? Why is murder acceptable in some cases but not in others? The only logically consistent views are either abortion in all cases or abortion in no cases.
Never said it was murder. I know its what ameican christians and other religious groups call it. Dont know what to call it myself.
In short I believe that every baby should have a shot at life. Reason why its "okay" with incest and rape, is that the psychological factor for the mother and baby that it knows its a result of incest or rape might lead to more unfortunate things. (suicide etc.)
On November 15 2012 02:22 ZeaL. wrote: If you suppose that killing a fetus is murder, why is it okay to murder fetuses produced by rape or incest? Why is it okay to kill a baby to save the mother? Why is murder acceptable in some cases but not in others? The only logically consistent views are either abortion in all cases or abortion in no cases.
i suppose they could reason that rape is uncontrollable by the woman and that incest is some kind of abomination worse than murder apparently. imo the most concrete and logical way to think about it is either one or the other. otherwise you're bringing a moral argument into a moral argument and it just gets messy and conflicting
On November 15 2012 02:20 TheRealArtemis wrote: Im see myself more as a liberal then a conservative in general. But In cases of abortion im pretty conservative.
IMO Abortion should only be legal if its an case of rape, incest, or if the baby is confirmed to be in major pain, or will be stricken will a disease that will make the baby have a short life, or majorly limit its capabilities to "live"
If the baby brings the mother's life in danger, its also a valid reason I think.
(not meaning like blind or not able to walk/work, since there are millions of happy people with those conditions)
I kinda feel like its morally wrong just to abort a baby because it doesnt fit into your life atm. In the western would it seems like a trend to fuck around untill you're like 25, then you meet your love of your life and then you get a baby. Any "accidents" before that just gets thrown in the trash.
If it takes away your job, tough luck. im sure your son/daughter will thank you later.
Equally if you have no willing sex partners and a choice between masturbation or raping some girl and then forcing her to carry the pregnancy to completion then I'm sure the baby born from the sperm that would have ended up in your hand had you jacked off will thank you for raping the girl. There are billions of potential lives in your hands and all of them, if they become actual lives, will have value. But that doesn't mean we should start treating them as such.
Personally I dont see the point of the sperm argument. And if a guy have to choose between rape and masturbation and jerk away. Sperm isnt life yet. its the key to it, but I dont see it as a living thing. Once its confirmed in the womb of the mother I see it as life.
Please note this is my personal opinion on it. I dont care much for what the crazy christians say, nor the crazies on the other side.
On November 15 2012 02:20 TheRealArtemis wrote: Im see myself more as a liberal then a conservative in general. But In cases of abortion im pretty conservative.
IMO Abortion should only be legal if its an case of rape, incest, or if the baby is confirmed to be in major pain, or will be stricken will a disease that will make the baby have a short life, or majorly limit its capabilities to "live"
If the baby brings the mother's life in danger, its also a valid reason I think.
(not meaning like blind or not able to walk/work, since there are millions of happy people with those conditions)
I kinda feel like its morally wrong just to abort a baby because it doesnt fit into your life atm. In the western would it seems like a trend to fuck around untill you're like 25, then you meet your love of your life and then you get a baby. Any "accidents" before that just gets thrown in the trash.
If it takes away your job, tough luck. im sure your son/daughter will thank you later.
Equally if you have no willing sex partners and a choice between masturbation or raping some girl and then forcing her to carry the pregnancy to completion then I'm sure the baby born from the sperm that would have ended up in your hand had you jacked off will thank you for raping the girl. There are billions of potential lives in your hands and all of them, if they become actual lives, will have value. But that doesn't mean we should start treating them as such.
Personally I dont see the point of the sperm argument. And if a guy have to choose between rape and masturbation and jerk away. Sperm isnt life yet. its the key to it, but I dont see it as a living thing. Once its confirmed in the womb of the mother I see it as life.
Please note this is my personal opinion on it. I dont care much for what the crazy christians say, nor the crazies on the other side.
Calling them crazy on either side and saying you don't care for what they have to say is how you get stuck in your opinion.
Sometimes is just plain sucks living in Ireland (North or South) its a very backward country where the vocal minority who make decisions for the rest of us. Religion has a lot to answer for.
Shit like this is just depressing, I feel terrible for her husband, to go from happily married (I assume) and expecting a child, to planning a funeral in the space of a few days.
On November 15 2012 00:25 Poltergeist- wrote: I will reserve judgement for the time being. I read the article and nowhere did it say that the fetus caused the disease that killed her nor that having an abortion would have saved her. Only the husband claims it would have saved her and unless he is a doctor or someone that knows, his word doesn't mean much.
I think this is smart. On the one hand, the doctors may have failed to identify that she would likely die without an abortion, in which case the law wasn't the problem. On the other, whether she had an abortion or not may not have saved her life. More information is needed before we can arrive at any useful conclusions.
I have to say that this title is strongly misleading... The only claims that she would have survived with an abortion are from her husband... And it didn't mention that he is a trained doctor, so I'm taking what he says with a silo of salt. Also, how do we know that he wasn't poisoning her just to get her to have an abortion???????????
The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
I don't know about Northern Ireland law so I won't comment on it. What I do know is that the rest of the UK allows abortion up to 24 weeks gestation. After 24 weeks, abortion is only legal if: - The mother's life is at risk if the pregnancy is allowed to continue - The foetus suffers from gross abnormalities - The mother is at grave risk of physical or mental injury if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.
What is also important is that although no doctor is legally required to perform an abortion if it is against his/her religion, the doctor is still legally required to refer the woman to another doctor that will be able to help her.
Regarding this article, as one of the above posts mentions, it does not clarify many things, such as whether the death was actually due to the pregnancy. That is what I'm led to believe however, and this sort of thing should never happen.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What Kwark is getting at is that they're not called 'baby' until the moment they are born. Before they actually come out of the womb, they are a foetus, no matter how developed they are.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
Irrelevant. In terms of official terminology, foetus before birth, baby after birth. End of story.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs?
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs?
So you dispute the fact that a fertilized egg left to develop would not be a human being? If you say it would be a human being, well, there is no new genetic material that the fetus receives considering that all of the encoding is fielded within the egg, and the sperm. Thus, at inception, it is a human being. Like I said, just because it cannot speak on its own behalf and because it isn't a cute little crying newborn doesn't make it less a human being.
On November 15 2012 03:24 semantics wrote: I guess I'm the only one here fascinated by the use of foetus over fetus, must be a Queens English distinction.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will.
Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
Fuck you religion. You once again failed to save a life of a woman because of the fetus inside of her but ended up killing both of them. Religion 1 Life 0
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs?
So you dispute the fact that a fertilized egg left to develop would not be a human being? If you say it would be a human being, well, there is no new genetic material that the fetus receives considering that all of the encoding is fielded within the egg, and the sperm. Thus, at inception, it is a human being. Like I said, just because it cannot speak on its own behalf and because it isn't a cute little crying newborn doesn't make it less a human being.
It has chromosomes, yet. But is has not developed a heart, lungs, brain, liver, head, arms, legs, hair, whatever. If you would argue that it is a human because it has all 46 chromosomes then I would ask if you call a piece of dandruff off my head a human, because that technically has 46 chromosomes as well.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Then you are arguing that the second an egg becomes fertilized you have a human being inside you. Many would argue against that.
I do not doubt that. I never said there weren't people arguing for that, I merely stated, how wrong it is. Out of sight, out of mind...eh? Just because that person has no one to argue on its behalf doesn't make it any less a human being.
You were arguing an opinion as fact. What makes your opinion worth more than theirs?
So you dispute the fact that a fertilized egg left to develop would not be a human being? If you say it would be a human being, well, there is no new genetic material that the fetus receives considering that all of the encoding is fielded within the egg, and the sperm. Thus, at inception, it is a human being. Like I said, just because it cannot speak on its own behalf and because it isn't a cute little crying newborn doesn't make it less a human being.
It is human genetic material but so are skin cells and tumours. It has a fundamentally parasitic existence until it is capable of existing outside of the womb, it is not capable of an independent life. The foetus does not have the right to impose upon the freedom of the mother, if you could take it out and let it develop in a test tube then I'd be fine with doing that but for as long as it depends upon the mother she should have control over her body.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will.
Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
Foetus is the British way of spelling the word. Fetus is American. Your ignorance is quite powerful
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
Your "real" point doesn't make much sense either since you are cherry picking: You can't say a million lifes vs a mother since you are picking one particular case of abortion against the entire history of abortions. To be more correct we are only talking about one mother and one possible aborting, not a million. If we are talking about the million abortions we also have to refer to the possible of amount of mothers which also could be a million mothers.
On November 15 2012 02:55 Wegandi wrote: The OP obviously misses the suffering of the millions of babies killed each year by abortions - as if her life is more valuable than any of the rest. No one wants to see suffering, but it is part of life, and condoning millions of deaths to justify a few sparse cases of a mother succumbing to death due to pregnancy is beyond far-fetched. That said, the mother has no obligation to care for the child, but cannot be complicit in its murder. In other words, I take a middle position - evictionism. You can remove the baby from your womb as long as it does not result in that babies death. As technology progresses the time frame that a mother would be required to carry the baby would become less and less. No one has the right to kill (read: murder) another human being, regardless if you are a mother, a Government official, or some schmoe.
Nobody anywhere is aborting babies. That's called infanticide.
You're trying to say fetus.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes (of the same pairing, same nature, etc.) just like any other human being, just because it is not fully developed does not make it less a human being. Is a person born without any limbs not a human being? Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Regardless if you say fetus, or baby, it is a human being.
Anyways, that wasn't my point. I was just appalled at the fact the OP seems to just shrug off his obvious assertion - that one mother's life, is more valuable than millions of other human beings (fetus, baby, whatever).
What you are trying to do is be deliberately vague in order to link things rather than specifically address the question at hand. Instead of making the case for why destroying a foetus is bad you are instead grouping it with other things and saying it is basically the same as them. If you think people should not be allowed to destroy a foetus then refer to the foetus directly and make a case which is specific to the foetus and explains what reasons there are to safeguard it's life over the wishes of the mother. Likewise I will ask pro-choice people to not simply go "well obviously slavery is wrong" and instead make a point that is specific to forcing a woman to carry a foetus against her will.
Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
Your point is pure semantic reasoning, so to address your points is to dwell on semantics. Unless you have some other sort of argument, you've given no one any other option.
Closing - Knee-jerk reactionary tabloidesque article. Not that it may not be a good topic to discuss, but as pointed out since page 1, we don't have nearly enough information to make informed opinions, and the resulting pro life/pro abortion rabble rabble rabble doesn't really contribute much.
EPT
