NationStates Jolt Archive

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html

I tend to lose the little reason I have over this kind of thing. Oddly enough it hasnt faded with age....

cold hearted bastards!

geez forcing a woman to carry a child to term that has zero chances for survival.

i can see why you lost your reason.

Human stupidity in action. She could so this the easy way you know... threaten to take some pills unless they consent to her giving an abortion. WHether she means it or not she has proven she is a suicide risk. Why should she risk her life and possibly her ability to have future children by giving birth to a doomed baby? Its one of the times I agree with abortion.

What fuckers!

The child will be born with anencephaly - that's without a freaking prosencephalon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosencephalon)! And they want to force her to carry it to term?!?

Oooh, things like these about Catholic countries just make me seethe with indignation. :mad:

Does anyone know why they refused?

I'm not a medical expert, but I can imagine an abortion in such a late stadium might even be more dangerous than having the baby born. In Belgium, abortion is not allowed over three months far because of the medical risk.


EDIT: if the reason turns out to be other than medical, I just think it's very, very wrong to deny her an abortion. That's just... medieval.

I'm not a medical expert, but I can imagine an abortion in such a late stadium might even be more dangerous than having the baby born. In Belgium, abortion is not allowed over three months far because of the medical risk.
At pretty much every stage, abortions are less risky than childbirth.

At pretty much every stage, abortions are less risky than childbirth.

Maybe she should have read more of these books:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0758202547.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Oooh, things like these about Catholic countries just make me seethe with indignation. :mad:

Of course, that doesn't take much, now, does it? :rolleyes:

At pretty much every stage, abortions are less risky than childbirth.

And at pretty much every stage, not having sex is less risky than having sex.

If you're gonna roll the dice, deal with the results.

If you're gonna roll the dice, deal with the results.

Ignoring the lunacy of that statement, at what point is being forced to carry a brain dead fetus to term, which will have 0 chance of survival, an acceptable result?

Of course, that doesn't take much, now, does it? :rolleyes:

Actually it does. I can despise quite apathetically. To make me seethe, you have to basically be evil incarnate, and this is nothing but!

If you're gonna roll the dice, deal with the results.

That's just imbecilic, especially in this case.

Ignoring the lunacy of that statement, at what point is being forced to carry a brain dead fetus to term, which will have 0 chance of survival, an acceptable result?

So we should practice eugenics now? Wonderful.

Actually it does. I can despise quite apathetically. To make me seethe, you have to basically be evil incarnate, and this is nothing but!

Evil? Hmmm...yes...anything with which one doesn't agree is evil. Of course.

At pretty much every stage, abortions are less risky than childbirth.

Looked it up, turns out to be right. But now we still don't know why they denied it. I mean, if that would decrease the risk, then why on earth would they want to stop her? It's a really unfair and incompetent decision.

Did you read the article?

The baby is basically going to be born with out a brain

She isn't looking for an abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant, she is looking for an abortion because her baby CAN'T survive.

It is cruel to force her to carry a baby that she will never be able to nurture, or raise...to be an incubator for a fetus that can not survive.

Whatever your stance on abortion to end a viable pregnancy...I don't understand forcing someone to carry a baby that is going to die before the womans anesthesia wears of, to term.

Evil? Hmmm...yes...anything with which one doesn't agree is evil. Of course.

The child she is carrying has anencephaly. Do you even know what that means? It will be born without a brain. All it will have is a brain stem and a spinal cord - go ahead and google it to see how they are born with an exposed and empty cranial cavity! It is for all intents and purposes dead already, and for you to propagate that she be forced to carry a carcass for five more months? Shame on you!

Fucking shame on you!

could it be that Northern Ireland is better than Eire!?

either way this makes me sick, doctors are supposed to help people not force them to go through unnecessary suffering for some barbaric ideology, usually I try to be an understanding guy but this is unacceptable

Whatever your stance on abortion to end a viable pregnancy...I don't understand forcing someone to carry a baby that is going to die before the womans anesthesia wears of, to term.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

So we should practice eugenics now? Wonderful.


Um, what the fuck? This baby doesn't have down syndrome. It doesn't have autism. It doesn't have another odd genetic disorder that will make it disabled or difficult to live.

It has NO FUCKING BRAIN. IT IS BRAIN DEAD. It can not live. Period. At all. Ever. The only thing keeping it alive as an organism is that it is in essence connected to the life support system that is its mother.

The moment it is removed, it will die. Period. End of story. This is not eugenics. The fetus is fucking brain dead.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

Slippery slope falacy. None of these apply. A child with Downs Syndrome, or blind, or brown eyes, or female can live. it can survive.

This one can not. Period. End of fucking story. No line, no slippery slope. It will be born brain dead. I am perfectly happy putting the line at the point where the fetus has absolutly 0% chance of functioning. The only person who would argue with this is one looking for a fight.

Fucking shame on you!

Bold text makes you right. I defer to the bold text. :rolleyes:

So we should practice eugenics now? Wonderful.

i thought that it was a common practice to screen fetuses wich have a high risk for a disability (when the mother is old, when there is a history of disabled people in the family etc).
and why would you want her to carry the baby? it's going to die anyway.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

Are you really this ignorant about the condition? There is no comparison between the things you mentioned and anencephaly. None whatso-fucking-ever.

Slippery slope falacy.

"I took four weeks of a logic class" or the "I looked up fallacy on wikipedia" fallacy. Not a fallacy at all. I asked a question. Where do we draw the line? No "end of fucking story" becasue you say so from your high fucking horse. I'm sure you'd be "perfectly happy" drawing the line as you see fit, but thankfully, you're not the one drawing the line.

Fass, don't be silly. On NSG there are numerous examples of people surviving without a brain. Some of them post quite frequently.

On a serious note, this seems like idiocy wrapped in sexism decorated with religious conservatism.

Fucking disgusting.

Bold text makes you right. I defer to the bold text. :rolleyes:

No, what makes me right is your complete ignorance into what anencephaly is. Have you googled for pictures of it? Do, and then stand here and tell me you would carry such a carcass to term. You really should be ashamed of yourself not just for the ignorance, but for your total disregard to common decency.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

Ooh ooh! Let me try!

If it is going to look like a wrinkly old person when it ages, abort it!
If it is going to cry and shit itself, abort it!
If it is going to have opinions, abort it!

Yay! Fun game.

"I took four weeks of a logic class" or the "I looked up fallacy on wikipedia" fallacy.

Try 3 years of lawschool

Not a fallacy at all. I asked a question. Where do we draw the line?

That is the fucking definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

No "end of fucking story" becasue you say so from your high fucking horse. I'm sure you'd be "perfectly happy" drawing the line as you see fit, but thankfully, you're not the one drawing the line.

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with any of those reasons. You see, I support a woman's right to govern her body as she sees fit.

That being said, in every country, in every day, brain dead individuals are taken off life support. Every day this happens. Every day, an individual kept alive only through life support, with no brain functions, are removed from that life support, and die.

In this case, the only difference is the life support is biological, not mechanical. This is a brain dead fetus on life support. Nothing more. Do you not support brain dead individuals being removed from life support?

"I took four weeks of a logic class" or the "I looked up fallacy on wikipedia" fallacy. Not a fallacy at all. I asked a question. Where do we draw the line? No "end of fucking story" becasue you say so from your high fucking horse. I'm sure you'd be "perfectly happy" drawing the line as you see fit, but thankfully, you're not the one drawing the line.

If you are going to bring up the eugenics meme, I have to point out that the fetus would not turn into a viable and breeding human. Ever. Even if you let it live, it could not contribute to the gene pool. Therefore, eugenics has nothing to do with it.

I work with children with disabilities...I would NEVER in a million years suggest that someone abort a child with a genetic disorder....

That isn't the case here. The baby she is carrying HAS NO BRAIN...no higher brain function...in essence, the baby is just a shell.

Have you ever been pregnant? Every day a baby grows inside you, you become more and more attached to it. It is nearly impossible to gestate a baby and not become attached...it's why moms who have chosen to give a child up for adoption have been known to change their minds, it's why surrogates have been known to fight to keep the baby. If I had to carry a baby to term, knowing it was going to be born dead, or to die shortly after birth, it would wreak havoc on my mental state.

cold hearted bastards!

geez forcing a woman to carry a child to term that has zero chances for survival.

i can see why you lost your reason.

She's not a woman in the eyes of the law. She's still a child. Purely by that legal standpoint, there's nothing wrong with this.

Now, if her parents or guardians had consented and the state were preventing her from crossing state lines to get an abortion, that would be an issue.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

Do you not see the difference? This baby is going to die no matter what. You shouldn't compare that to anything like Down Syndrome. That is a really big difference. There is 0% of survival.

It'd be cruel to let this girl actually give birth to her baby knowing that she will never be a mother to it. She will go through 9 months of natural hormonal preparation to start loving her child, and she won't have a child to love. That's a deadly pain.

If you are going to bring up the eugenics meme, I have to point out that the fetus would not turn into a viable and breeding human. Ever. Even if you let it live, it could not contribute to the gene pool. Therefore, eugenics has nothing to do with it.

no no. Don't correct him that quickly. He'll never learn that way.

Try 3 years of lawschool



That is the fucking definition of a slippery slope fallacy.



Actually, I'm perfectly fine with any of those reasons. You see, I support a woman's right to govern her body as she sees fit.

That being said, in every country, in every day, brain dead individuals are taken off life support. Every day this happens. Every day, an individual kept alive only through life support, with no brain functions, are removed from that life support, and die.

In this case, the only difference is the life support is biological, not mechanical. This is a brain dead fetus on life support. Nothing more. Do you not support brain dead individuals being removed from life support?



How could he? If he did then he would have to support murder of anyone for any reason whatsoever.

you're not the one drawing the line.

so where do you draw the line?

She's not a woman in the eyes of the law. She's still a child. Purely by that legal standpoint, there's nothing wrong with this.

Now, if her parents or guardians had consented and the state were preventing her from crossing state lines to get an abortion, that would be an issue.

If parents make a dumbfuck, life changing decision for their kid, it kind of becomes an issue.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

Birth.

If the kid can survive without help, it's alive. If not, it's biological waste.

No, what makes me right is your complete ignorance into what anencephaly is. Have you googled for pictures of it? Do, and then stand here and tell me you would carry such a carcass to term. You really should be ashamed of yourself not just for the ignorance, but for your total disregard to common decency.


Then I bow to google.

No, wait. I don't.

Try 3 years of lawschool

Wow...you must be soooo smart then. :rolleyes:

I'll ignore the number of ignorant practicing lawyers I've encountered. You must be better than they are, what with your three whole years of law school and all (oh, and plenty of time arguing on teh intarwebs)...

Birth.

If the kid can survive without help, it's alive. If not, it's biological waste.

Point! Don't know until it's carried to term then, do you? Of course, doctors don't make diagnotic mistakes, though, do they? So yeah, just kill it now.

Then I bow to google.

No, wait. I don't.

You just bow to your own ignorance in matters where you mouth off with your inanities.

"I took four weeks of a logic class" or the "I looked up fallacy on wikipedia" fallacy. Not a fallacy at all. I asked a question. Where do we draw the line? No "end of fucking story" becasue you say so from your high fucking horse. I'm sure you'd be "perfectly happy" drawing the line as you see fit, but thankfully, you're not the one drawing the line.

yeah a line has to be drawn. yeah drawing that line can be difficult.

but forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy with zero chance of success is so far from that line that it doesnt much matter where you would draw it.

Point! Don't know until it's carried to term then, do you? Of course, doctors don't make diagnotic mistakes, though, do they? So yeah, just kill it now.

What are you suggesting? That she get a second or third opinion? Probably a good idea. If they concur, she should definitely get the abortion.

Point! Don't know until it's carried to term then, do you? Of course, doctors don't make diagnotic mistakes, though, do they? So yeah, just kill it now.

Anencephaly is not misdiagnoasable. It's pretty fucking obvious, actually.

I look at it rather differently from you. The death of the embryo is merely a side-effect of the woman's decision to cease to provide her body as a gestation chamber. Her body, her choice. No one else gets a say.

doctors don't make diagnotic mistakes

It's pretty easy to see on a standard ultrasound that the baby has no brain...


if there is a question, then they do a 3D ultrasound, and if there is still a question..they do a 4D ultrasound...yes, diagnostic mistakes can be made...anacephaly isn't a condition that is one of them anymore

She's not a woman in the eyes of the law. She's still a child. Purely by that legal standpoint, there's nothing wrong with this.

Now, if her parents or guardians had consented and the state were preventing her from crossing state lines to get an abortion, that would be an issue.

you mean you think her parents want her to carry a brainless fetus to term?

Then where do we stop?

we don't. next question.

Point! Don't know until it's carried to term then, do you? Of course, doctors don't make diagnotic mistakes, though, do they? So yeah, just kill it now.

http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/0006/Anencephaly%205.jpg <- Ultrasound image.

Oh, the... outright nonsense! It has no brain! They can see that on an ultrasound. This is not an "iffy" diagnosis. They can see that it has no brain. It will never grow a brain. It will be born with a head that has its imploded cranium fully exposed to the environment since the neural crest never will have fused and its breathing and heart will only be sustained through brainstem reflexes for at most a day or two. To want that it be born to term is nothing short of inhuman.

You just bow to your own ignorance in matters where you mouth off with your inanities.

I'll bow. I'll bow out. What I'll bow out to, though, is not some failed logic, but the ridiculous "MUST SUPPORT ABORTION IN ANY CASE" mentality of NSG.

Ashmoria does indeed have a good point. Yes, a line has to be drawn. And yes, drawing that line is damned difficult.

I refer you lot to my remark regarding medical mistakes above, however. Enjoy patting yourselves on the back, though, without any rational discourse. You have all sickened yet another with your close-minded bullshit. Congrats.

I'll bow. I'll bow out. What I'll bow out to, though, is not some failed logic, but the ridiculous "MUST SUPPORT ABORTION IN ANY CASE" mentality of NSG.

In this case, for one not to support abortion, makes one a monster.

I'll bow. I'll bow out. What I'll bow out to, though, is not some failed logic, but the ridiculous "MUST SUPPORT ABORTION IN ANY CASE" mentality of NSG.

Ashmoria does indeed have a good point. Yes, a line has to be drawn. And yes, drawing that line is damned difficult.

I refer you lot to my remark regarding medical mistakes above, however. Enjoy patting yourselves on the back, though, without any rational discourse. You have all sickened yet another with your close-minded bullshit. Congrats.

I hate myself for not being a knee jerk monster.

Repeat after me:

The most inalienable right of a human being is the right to the ownership of his/her own body. Women possess that right as well as men. No person can EVER be stripped of this fundamental, basic control over his/her own body.

The viable/unviable fetus argument is moot. That girl can choose whatever the fuck she wants to do with her uterus. That is all. If she wants to carry a baby she loves to term, she does. If she doesn't want to carry an already condemned baby, she doesn't have to. Period.

I don't understand your last comment.

Because I support abortion in a case where a child will certainly die doesn't mean I support abortion in all cases.

It sounds as though you have realized you have no leg to stand on, so as a parting shot, lets tell people they have sickened you.

Well..it still sickens me that you would force a person through that particular hell

Because I support abortion in a case where a child will certainly die doesn't mean I support abortion in all cases.
Save your typing - there is no grey in crackpot land.

Anencephaly is not misdiagnoasable. It's pretty fucking obvious, actually.

I look at it rather differently from you. The death of the embryo is merely a side-effect of the woman's decision to cease to provide her body as a gestation chamber. Her body, her choice. No one else gets a say.

It's pretty easy to see on a standard ultrasound that the baby has no brain...


if there is a question, then they do a 3D ultrasound, and if there is still a question..they do a 4D ultrasound...yes, diagnostic mistakes can be made...anacephaly isn't a condition that is one of them anymore

Thank you, doctors.

we don't. next question.

Thank you, insane person/thing/whatever.

I viewed Cluichstan's last post and now I'm glad I stuck his willfully ignorant ass on ignore. Cluichstan, if you insist on to listening to no one but yourself why don't you go looking for a pro-life forum so you can sit around in the "force women to carry fetuses to term no matter what" circle jerk.

Leave me on ignore. That's typical of someone who refuses to hear an opposing viewpoint.

And I'm the ignorant one who chooses to listen to no one but myself... :rolleyes:

you mean you think her parents want her to carry a brainless fetus to term?

And if they did the miserable scumbags should be prosecuted for child abuse...

Save your typing - there is no grey in crackpot land.

Are there roller coasters?

Save your typing - there is no grey in crackpot land.

So, no grey where you are, eh?

I refer you lot to my remark regarding medical mistakes above, however. Enjoy patting yourselves on the back, though, without any rational discourse. You have all sickened yet another with your close-minded bullshit. Congrats.

And I refer you to the picture Fass posted. Now, I've never had a child. I am not an expert, but even I can tell that there is something wrong with the fetus in that ultrasound. I cannot imagine going through this diagnosis, but I can tell you that the only people who should have a say in this decision are me, my husband, and my doctor. If the girl is underage, then her parents would be involved. No one else. If she decides to abort, if she decides to carry the baby to term, it's not anyone's business but her own!!!! Not yours, not the politicians, not mine, not the church.

I'll bow. I'll bow out. What I'll bow out to, though, is not some failed logic, but the ridiculous "MUST SUPPORT ABORTION IN ANY CASE" mentality of NSG.

Ashmoria does indeed have a good point. Yes, a line has to be drawn. And yes, drawing that line is damned difficult.

I refer you lot to my remark regarding medical mistakes above, however. Enjoy patting yourselves on the back, though, without any rational discourse. You have all sickened yet another with your close-minded bullshit. Congrats.

I for one am not a 'must support abortion in any case' person. But I thought of it this way.

No abortion: girl carries baby around for 9 months. Gives birth to lifeless or almost lifeless baby. Girl gets false hope of living baby or is deeply affected by fact of giving birth to a dead body. Baby is dead. Girl gets bad depression out of whole shocking experience.

Abortion: girl stops carrying baby. Baby is dead. Girl goes on with life.


You should think a little further than 'abortion is murder'.

And I'm the ignorant one who chooses to listen to no one but myself... :rolleyes:

Yes, that would seem to describe your behaviour perfectly.

Are there roller coasters?
Only the "You sinned, now you're going to hell" ride.

Right... so not only are they denying the girl the ability to use the Irish health service, but they are denying her the ability to leave the country and have an abortion where they are legal. That latter part really stinks in my opinion. That should be taken to the European courts.

In the mean time I hope the girl manages to evade the Irish authorities and get into the UK.

Thank you, doctors.

Interesting that you didn't pick me for that comment. This diagnosis is so readily made that you don't even need to be a doctor to make it. Look at this ultrasound:

http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/0006/Anencephaly%205.jpg

See where just above the eyes the head just stops and there is just a gaping hole? Can you finally get into your skull that this is what it will be born like?

Repeat after me:

The most inalienable right of a human being is the right to the ownership of his/her own body. Women possess that right as well as men. No person can EVER be stripped of this fundamental, basic control over his/her own body.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

If she decides to abort, if she decides to carry the baby to term, it's not anyone's business but her own!!!! Not yours, not the politicians, not mine, not the church.
Quoted for truth. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks like that on this thread.

Only the "You sinned, now you're going to hell" ride.

Doesn't sound very safe... like one of those old wooden ones with no safety bar.

Quoted for truth. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks like that on this thread.

That implies that either of you actually think.

you mean you think her parents want her to carry a brainless fetus to term?

No, I was taking on the very limited argument of whether or not a 17-year-old girl is considered a woman when it comes to a decision like this. If she were 18, she wouldn't have to tell her parents anything in the eyes of the law. However, she's 17, which is a world of difference in the case of deciding on something as deeply personal and jarring as abortion.

In this particular incidence, I would support her right to have an abortion because the fetus would not be able to survive outside the womb. I just wanted to correct an inaccuracy when it came to deciding whether she was a legal adult or not.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

We can only hope for some future where a woman can walk away from bringing a child into the world just like a man can.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

Why are you assuming that she would have the abortion anyway? If I one day chose to have a baby and it had this condition, I'd have it aborted too. How can you not see the consequences for actually giving birth to a baby like this? It's an ampty vessel, a dead body, a piece of skin and bones. How do you think this would affect not just this girl, but anyone who would have to walk around for 9 months knowing that there is a dead thing inside you?

That implies that either of you actually think.

Gee, thanks. :rolleyes: You don't even know me, or my thoughts, or anything about me, but because I disagree with you on abortion, I'm an idiot. Grow the fuck up.

Thank you, doctors.

I'm fairly sure fass is a doctor and I've got some bullshit on front line trauma care

you need neither of these to realize brain dead = deceased, unless of course cancer/bodily growths are living things and as such shouldn't be killed off

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

Repeat after me: Women have the right to have sex. Men do not have the right to try to control women's sexuality with threats of being stuck carrying to term a fetus if they don't want to. Having sex does not negate one's absolute ability to dispose of his/her body as s/he sees fit.

You do not get to choose what happens to other people's bodies. That is the most immoral, disgusting, inhuman thing someone can ever pretend to do. That girl has every right to choose whether or not she will let this fetus stay comfortably in her womb, or if she prefers to get it out right now because she sees no point in carrying it to term. She is the only one qualified to make that choice. Not you.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

It is a solution - yes. What exactly is wrong with it if it is done before there is anything with feelings or a brain to scrape ?

Thank you, doctors.

Nope, not a doctor, but someone who has been pregnant, and gone through multiple ultrasounds, in fact, one of my babies had a marker for something, so, they did a 3D ultrasound. I've been through the process so many time that I DO understand the process.

I also diagnosed my own toxemia, (correctly) and diagnosed my daughters gastric reflux correctly. So no, I'm not a doctor, but I'm not an idiot either.

Put yourself in that girls shoes...imagine for one minute, that you are pregnant, and you just found out that your baby is going to be born without a brain...oh yeah, but the part of the brain they WILL be born with is the part that feels pain. When they are born, if they are born alive, they will die a horrible painful death. I don't know about you, but as a parent, I want to SPARE my child any pain. If that means allowing them to be born at 4 months gestation, so they won't feel any of the pain they will have dying, then I would do that. Does that make it easier to stomach, that the doctors won't be performing an abortion, they will be inducing birth.

Leave me on ignore. That's typical of someone who refuses to hear an opposing viewpoint.

And I'm the ignorant one who chooses to listen to no one but myself... :rolleyes:

What is your view?
do you believe that even in the case that it is confirmed by a room full of doctors, that this girl should still carry the child to term? Regardless of anything else?

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

Thank you for reminding us just how fucking insane some pro-lifers are.

You don't give a shit about basic human rights or even the value of human life.

You just want to punish the dirty girl for spreading her legs.

One of the possible consequences of having evil opinions is that others will scorn and ridicule you for it. Deal with it.

The ridiculousness of this is enough to make me say "Jesus Christ!"

Let the teen abort the baby! The baby cannot survive outside the womb no matter how old it is! It has no brain!

The religious idiots that continue to allow this kind of bullshit to go on piss me off to no end.

That implies that either of you actually think.
That personal attack implies that you are so inept that you must resort to insulting us instead of arguing our points.

This thread proves once again that reality has a liberal bias.

Repeat after me: Women have the right to have sex. Men do not have the right to try to control women's sexuality with threats of being stuck carrying to term a fetus if they don't want to. Having sex does not negate one's absolute ability to dispose of his/her body as s/he sees fit.

You do not get to choose what happens to other people's bodies. That is the most immoral, disgusting, inhuman thing someone can ever pretend to do. That girl has every right to choose whether or not she will let this fetus stay comfortably in her womb, or if she prefers to get it out right now because she sees no point in carrying it to term. She is the only one qualified to make that choice. Not you.

troof. Verily, troof. But it's not like we're going to change their minds any more than they're going to change our minds. So we shout at each other across the divide, like it's going to make any difference. :(

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

Why are you assuming that she would have the abortion anyway? If I one day chose to have a baby and it had this condition, I'd have it aborted too. How can you not see the consequences for actually giving birth to a baby like this? It's an ampty vessel, a dead body, a piece of skin and bones. How do you think this would affect not just this girl, but anyone who would have to walk around for 9 months knowing that there is a dead thing inside you?
You forget that sex outside of marriage is illegal and any consequences are your punishment.

Repeat after me: Women have the right to have sex. Men do not have the right to try to control women's sexuality with threats of being stuck carrying to term a fetus if they don't want to. Having sex does not negate one's absolute ability to dispose of his/her body as s/he sees fit.

You do not get to choose what happens to other people's bodies. That is the most immoral, disgusting, inhuman thing someone can ever pretend to do. That girl has every right to choose whether or not she will let this fetus stay comfortably in her womb, or if she prefers to get it out right now because she sees no point in carrying it to term. She is the only one qualified to make that choice. Not you.

Well said.

Of course, to Cluichstan women aren't people with choices but are merely incubators for the next generation -- even when that generation is brain dead.

Well said.

Of course, to Cluichstan women aren't people with choices but are merely incubators for the next generation -- even when that generation is brain dead.

I bet most of that next generation will find their way to NSG. If history is to prove anything.

This thread proves once again that reality has a liberal bias.

which is why we're starting a war against reality itself. we have to fight it there or it will fight us here!

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

Repeat after me:

Humans have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. If I knew for certain that a fetus inside me would cure cancer and save millions of lives, it would still be my right to abort it.

Your position that a woman should be forced to carry a dying fetus to term is nothing less than disgusting. If you are so desperate to force your will on her, you might as well fly over there and rape her.

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

Pro-life is not the real issue here since the girl in question is carrying a dead body inside her. Cluichstan seems to be arguing that that serves her right for having sex, and the torment must continue for the sole reason to punish her.

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

Dealing with fanatical anti-choicers is like shovelling manure: however many times you do it it still stinks.

Cluichstan, I am asking this because I want to understand how you're thinking on this.

Why do you think she should keep the baby?


EDIT: I mean in this particular circumstance. Not how you feel about abortion in general, but this specific girl with her braindead baby.

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

I've lived with a pro lifer. But we could have rational discussions about it, without degenerating into arguments. And I honestly think that in this case, she might even come down on my side. Another demonstration of the lack of black/white absolutes in real life, I guess.

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

Nah, it just never ceases to amaze me, how black and white some people see the world.

Cluichstan, I am asking this because I want to understand how you're thinking on this.

Why do you think she should keep the baby?
Punishment for having sex, duh.

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

its more like clui is ably demonstrating the pure monstrosity of the women-haters and people are naturally responding as is only fitting.

No, I was taking on the very limited argument of whether or not a 17-year-old girl is considered a woman when it comes to a decision like this. If she were 18, she wouldn't have to tell her parents anything in the eyes of the law. However, she's 17, which is a world of difference in the case of deciding on something as deeply personal and jarring as abortion.

In this particular incidence, I would support her right to have an abortion because the fetus would not be able to survive outside the womb. I just wanted to correct an inaccuracy when it came to deciding whether she was a legal adult or not.

i suppose it varies by legal traditions but the right to abortion is different from other medical decisions that a minor might not be able to make without parental consent because it cant be put off until she is an adult. to have parents decide that she cant abort makes her a mother forever, not just for the short time she is still under age. other medical decisions a 17 year old might disagree with her parents over --breast implants for example--can be deferred until she is 18 and able to make her own decision.

I must say, the way you lot are dealing with cluichstan is as if you have never seen or had any contact with a pro lifer in your life!

In my defense, I live in Canada, and here those so-called "pro-lifers" are regarded as the dangerous loony theyr really are for wanting to strip women of the most basic fundamental right every human being has.

If you deny women the right to dispose of their own body by preventing abortion, you're doing the same thing as saying anyone can come up to your house and take your blood or organs against your will if you justify it with it being to save another life. Well, tough luck, that's not gonna happen, because nobody is entitled to your body but yourself.

So, if it's neither legal nor moral to chop off someone's body parts even if it is to save another FULLY GROWN AND FUNCTIONNING human being, I fail to see why a woman should be forced to enslave herself as life-support for a clump of cell, a brain-dead fetus, or anyone else.

No. Double. Standards. Women are people too. That is all.

Pro-life is not the real issue here since the girl in question is carrying a dead body inside her. Cluichstan seems to be arguing that that serves her right for having sex, and the torment must continue for the sole reason to punish her.

Dealing with fanatical anti-choicers is like shovelling manure: however many times you do it it still stinks.

I've lived with a pro lifer. But we could have rational discussions about it, without degenerating into arguments. And I honestly think that in this case, she might even come down on my side. Another demonstration of the lack of black/white absolutes in real life, I guess.

Nah, it just never ceases to amaze me, how black and white some people see the world.

It's pretty standard pro life stuff tbh. At least from what i've seen.

pretty standard...yes....but it still amazes me

Punishment for having sex, duh.

I'm not kidding. I really want him to show some reasons why he's saying all of this. I find it hard to believe he'd actually feel like she should be punished in such a horrible way.

It's pretty standard pro life stuff tbh. At least from what i've seen.

To be fair to pro-lifers, most of them aren't insane enough to make a teenager carry a dead foetus to term.

In my defense, I live in Canada, and here those so-called "pro-lifers" are regarded as the dangerous loony theyr really are for wanting to strip women of the most basic fundamental right every human being has.

If you deny women the right to dispose of their own body by preventing abortion, you're doing the same thing as saying anyone can come up to your house and take your blood or organs against your will if you justify it with it being to save another life. Well, tough luck, that's not gonna happen, because nobody is entitled to your body but yourself.

So, if it's neither legal nor moral to chop off someone's body parts even if it is to save another FULLY GROWN AND FUNCTIONNING human being, I fail to see why a woman should be forced to enslave herself as life-support for a clump of cell, a brain-dead fetus, or anyone else.

No. Double. Standards. Women are people too. That is all.

I generally agree to an extent. Though I wouldn't call that highly complex medical procedure a fundamental human right.

Nope, not a doctor, but someone who has been pregnant, and gone through multiple ultrasounds, in fact, one of my babies had a marker for something, so, they did a 3D ultrasound. I've been through the process so many time that I DO understand the process.

I also diagnosed my own toxemia, (correctly) and diagnosed my daughters gastric reflux correctly. So no, I'm not a doctor, but I'm not an idiot either.

Put yourself in that girls shoes...imagine for one minute, that you are pregnant, and you just found out that your baby is going to be born without a brain...oh yeah, but the part of the brain they WILL be born with is the part that feels pain. When they are born, if they are born alive, they will die a horrible painful death. I don't know about you, but as a parent, I want to SPARE my child any pain. If that means allowing them to be born at 4 months gestation, so they won't feel any of the pain they will have dying, then I would do that. Does that make it easier to stomach, that the doctors won't be performing an abortion, they will be inducing birth.


the cruelty of this is staggering. to force this young woman to spend the next 5 months growing a fetus that will die, knowing every day that its all for nothing. the pain of that, the unending daily grief that she will suffer. its just so wrong.

It's pretty standard pro life stuff tbh. At least from what i've seen.

which is the problem. it's fucking nuts. i mean seriously, the dirty slut must be forced to carry her brainless fetus to term, where it will promptly die, because shes a dirty dirty slut?

the cruelty of this is staggering. to force this young woman to spend the next 5 months growing a fetus that will die, knowing every day that its all for nothing. the pain of that, the unending daily grief that she will suffer. its just so wrong.

I agree with you.

It's horrific.

which is the problem. it's fucking nuts. i mean seriously, the dirty slut must be forced to carry her brainless fetus to term, where it will promptly die, because shes a dirty dirty slut?

Certainly. She AND the fetus deserve punishment. How else can fundie pro-lifers masturbate ?

Oh wait. That means they are sinning as well ! Oh deary, deary me...

which is the problem. it's fucking nuts. i mean seriously, the dirty slut must be forced to carry her brainless fetus to term, where it will promptly die, because shes a dirty dirty slut?

Well most of the time it's for religious reasons, which is not so bad as it's not through hate of womens rights or anything like that. I admit it's a little strange to not be religious but yet be so fundamentally pro life like cluichstan who I think is an atheist.

Punishment for having sex, duh.

oh God i can see the religious literature now.

"you see children if you have sex before marriage god will punish you by making you pregnant with a brainless child"

oh God i can see the religious literature now.

"you see children if you have sex before marriage god will punish you by making you pregnant with a brainless child"

Pity that the same can happen to married couples.. But that will of course be left out in bibleclass.

I generally agree to an extent. Though I wouldn't call that highly complex medical procedure a fundamental human right.

The fundamental human right is the one about being able to decide whatever the hell happens to her body, not the medical procedure per se. A state could choose not to pay for the medical procedure, for example, but cannot stop a person from having a medical procedure if they can find the money to pay for it and a surgeon to perform it.

Our body belongs to ourselves and no one else. Nobody gets to tell us what we can or cannot do with it.

Well most of the time it's for religious reasons, which is not so bad as it's not through hate of womens rights or anything like that. I admit it's a little strange to not be religious but yet be so fundamentally pro life like cluichstan who I think is an atheist.

The problem is that most Christian sects have a fundamental denial of women's rights built right into their philosophy. If I've heard 'as Christ is head of the church, so is a man the head of a woman' once, I've heard it a thousand times. Most sects seem to think that women need to have an eye kept on them, because we're all sluts just waiting to get a man in a corner to have our Evil Way (TM) with them. And since we can't control ourselves, whatever happens as a result of our fundamental sluttiness is our own fault, including carrying a dead fetus to term.

Well most of the time it's for religious reasons, which is not so bad as it's not through hate of womens rights or anything like that. I admit it's a little strange to not be religious but yet be so fundamentally pro life like cluichstan who I think is an atheist.

But you should at least be able to see that just because you believe something doesn't mean that you should, through the law, force another person to believe or adhere to those things in a case where no harm could possibly come to yourself or anybody else that you know.

The fundamental human right is the one about being able to decide whatever the hell happens to her body, not the medical procedure per se. A state could choose not to pay for the medical procedure, for example, but cannot stop a person from having a medical procedure if they can find the money to pay for it and a surgeon to perform it.

Our body belongs to ourselves and no one else. Nobody gets to tell us what we can or cannot do with it.

fair enough

The problem is that most Christian sects have a fundamental denial of women's rights built right into their philosophy. If I've heard 'as Christ is head of the church, so is a man the head of a woman' once, I've heard it a thousand times. Most sects seem to think that women need to have an eye kept on them, because we're all sluts just waiting to get a man in a corner to have our Evil Way (TM) with them. And since we can't control ourselves, whatever happens as a result of our fundamental sluttiness is our own fault, including carrying a dead fetus to term.

I recently read a quote that was something to effect that not even Christ made it to the highest level of his religion.

Well most of the time it's for religious reasons, which is not so bad as it's not through hate of womens rights or anything like that. I admit it's a little strange to not be religious but yet be so fundamentally pro life like cluichstan who I think is an atheist.

I suspect that he's playing the devil's advocate, but I'm not sure. Either way, it's earned him a spot on my ignore list. :)

The problem is that most Christian sects have a fundamental denial of women's rights built right into their philosophy.

I'm not so sure about most.


And since we can't control ourselves, whatever happens as a result of our fundamental sluttiness is our own fault, including carrying a dead fetus to term.

I've never heard a christian pro lifer intellectual make that argument tbh. It's more about it still being a human life blah blah blah....

I'm not so sure about most.



I've never heard a christian pro lifer intellectual make that argument tbh. It's more about it still being a human life blah blah blah....

Of course they don't say that, but that's the implication. Original sin, and all that.

Well most of the time it's for religious reasons, which is not so bad as it's not through hate of womens rights or anything like that.

nah, that's just a mask to hide behind. they don't actually have religious reasons to oppose abortion. hell, even if they did have religious grounds for the idea that personhood begins at conception, they don't actually believe that anyways. it really is about control over women and punishing dirty sluts, and that's all there is to it.

But you should at least be able to see that just because you believe something doesn't mean that you should, through the law, force another person to believe or adhere to those things in a case where no harm could possibly come to yourself or anybody else that you know.

Of course, but all i'm really saying is being pro life because "thats what God commanded, life is sacred from conception blah blah blah" isn't as bad being pro life "coz the slut deserves it".

I recently read a quote that was something to effect that not even Christ made it to the highest level of his religion.

I thnk Christ has just begun to ignore all the shit that's carried out in his name. He was a good guy, the prototypical hippy, who taught peace and love. No sex, drugs or rock'n'roll, but... What gets done in his name sickens me, it really does. I sometimes wish he'd come down and do a whole moneychanger thing on the churches who've perverted his words.

nah, that's just a mask to hide behind. they don't actually have religious reasons to oppose abortion. hell, even if they did have religious grounds for the idea that personhood begins at conception, they don't actually believe that anyways. it really is about control over women and punishing dirty sluts, and that's all there is to it.

I disagree. I think it's not so hard to be pro life if you interpret the Bible in a certain way.

nah, that's just a mask to hide behind. they don't actually have religious reasons to oppose abortion. hell, even if they did have religious grounds for the idea that personhood begins at conception, they don't actually believe that anyways. it really is about control over women and punishing dirty sluts, and that's all there is to it.

Actually, from the experience I've had discussing with many religious anti-choice persons, this appears to be awfully close to the truth. The "they have to accept the consequences of having sex" argument is oftentimes cited, and oftentimes I have to remind them that having sex does not rob you of basic human rights, otherwise nobody but children under 12 would have any basic human rights. And then some.

Of course, but all i'm really saying is being pro life because "thats what God commanded, life is sacred from conception blah blah blah" isn't as bad being pro life "coz the slut deserves it".

Not as bad but still as intruding.

I see no reason why this pregnancy should be carried to term. Give the poor girl a break. Don't you think it's hard enough on her to know that her child is dead either way?

I disagree. I think it's not so hard to be pro life if you interpret the Bible in a certain way.

But that's the whole point. The bible can be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways, depending on which translation you read and your own POV. I consider myself to be pro choice, but I also think that we need to provide alternatives to abortions, things like birth control and Plan B, and open adoptions in circumstances where it would help. But in the end, it really all comes down to the simple fact that what I do with my body is my business, and my business alone.

oh God I can see the religious literature now.

"You see children if you have sex before marriage god will punish you by making you pregnant with a brainless child"

And here I was thinking that god was in the practice of Omni benevolence.

Seriously, what I think is that if a child is going to be born with serious medical conditions that affect the quality of not only the child but of those around it in a negative manner then it should be aborted, screw the religious right who say that its murder, they will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes anyway, crimson is my favourite colour.

Anyway, you can always make more babies.

I disagree. I think it's not so hard to be pro life if you interpret the Bible in a certain way.

except that the bible explicitly contradicts the essential starting point of the pro-life argument in the only places where it even remotely addresses the subject. now, there might be other religions out there that would make for more fertile anti-abortion ground, but christianity ain't it.

No Brain=No soul. Even the most hardcore Religious people should realize that.

except that the bible explicitly contradicts the essential starting point of the pro-life argument in the only places where it even remotely addresses the subject. now, there might be other religions out there that would make for more fertile anti-abortion ground, but Christianity ain't it.I think the Bible provides a moral basis to opposing abortions. Jesus exhibited a great love for children. The Bible says that God formed you in the womb and knew your name before you were born. Do you think God wants you destroying something created in his own likeness?

Note: I'm pro-choice in that I think a women should be allowed to have in abortion if it threatens her life/health or if the baby is the result of incest/rape. I also don't think there is a problem with aborting a baby that's already dead like in this case.

No Brain=No soul. Even the most hardcore Religious people should realize that.

Soul or not is irrelevant. My neighbour has a soul(if you believe in that jazz) and he's still not entitled to using my body as life-support (be it by blood transfusion or organ donations) to save his own life. Fetuses, whether they have a soul or not, do not strip women from possession of their own body.

Soul or not is irrelevant. My neighbour has a soul(if you believe in that jazz) and he's still not entitled to using my body as life-support (be it by blood transfusion or organ donations) to save his own life. Fetuses, whether they have a soul or not, do not strip women from possession of their own body.

Amen! I am so tired of the idea that once a woman becomes pregnant, she is nothing but an incubator. No choices, no ability to make up her own mind, she suddenly becomes a three year old.

Actually, from the experience I've had discussing with many religious anti-choice persons, this appears to be awfully close to the truth. The "they have to accept the consequences of having sex" argument is oftentimes cited, and oftentimes I have to remind them that having sex does not rob you of basic human rights, otherwise nobody but children under 12 would have any basic human rights. And then some.

But would these anti-choicers demand that a woman carries a dead body inside her for 9 months, just because she had sex ? Even if said woman was a good [insert faith here] and married ?

I think the Bible provides a moral basis to opposing abortions.

exodus 21:22-25

Amen! I am so tired of the idea that once a woman becomes pregnant, she is nothing but an incubator. No choices, no ability to make up her own mind, she suddenly becomes a three year old.

Well... I would like some restrictions here. I dislike the idea of a woman being allowed to kill her child one hour before an almost certainly quite smooth birthing proces would start, just because she felt like it.

Well... I would like some restrictions here. I dislike the idea of a woman being allowed to kill her child one hour before an almost certainly quite smooth birthing proces would start, just because she felt like it.

I'm not syaing that she should be. I'm commenting on the appalling attitude that once a woman becomes pregnant, she ceases to become a thinking human being and becomes nothing but an incubator. I would say, personally, that I would object to abortion after a fetus would be able to live outside the womb with minimal intervention.

Soul or not is irrelevant. My neighbour has a soul(if you believe in that jazz) and he's still not entitled to using my body as life-support (be it by blood transfusion or organ donations) to save his own life. Fetuses, whether they have a soul or not, do not strip women from possession of their own body.
I know, but one of the arguments for the Pro-lifers is that they're murdering a person with a soul. Even though the essence of "Self" only appears around the 5th month. However, this thing has no brain, no 'self', no higher functions.

Of course this is the same sort that tried to keep that Brain fried Terri whatever alive.

I think the Bible provides a moral basis to opposing abortions. Jesus exhibited a great love for children. The Bible says that God formed you in the womb and knew your name before you were born. Do you think God wants you destroying something created in his own likeness?


Don't you think it's a bit odd that, if abortion is considered to be murder, God doesn't take the time to mention it anywhere in the Bible? He takes the time to spell out what kinds of clothes one should wear and what foods can be eaten but abortion isn't even mentioned once.

It's not the doctors that are denying her the abortion, it's the beaurocrats. You see, if women can make decisions for themselves and their own bodies, what use is the church?

So we should practice eugenics now? Wonderful.


The baby will be born with no brain. I realise from your previous posts on various topics that the term "stupid ****" has been known to fly in your direction (and not without reason) but I would like to know how sparing a woman having to give birth to a child with a 2 day (if even that) life span qualifies as "eugenics" in any real way.

The baby will be born with no brain. I realise from your previous posts on various topics that the term "stupid ****" has been known to fly in your direction (and not without reason) but I would like to know how sparing a woman having to give birth to a child with a 2 day (if even that) life span qualifies as "eugenics" in any real way.

Anencephalics, as you note, never survive.

It's not like it's a birth defect that is survivable - the kid is dead on arrival.

The "life" of the baby is not in question - it doesn't have any brain to have brain waves in.

Doctors should be asking themselves why they can't remove the baby at this point, and be done with it.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that, if abortion is considered to be murder, God doesn't take the time to mention it anywhere in the Bible? He takes the time to spell out what kinds of clothes one should wear and what foods can be eaten but abortion isn't even mentioned once.

And do not forget that God has no problems whatsoever with killing women in quite a few circumstances, without a "but wait 9 months so a possible child may live" clause.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that, if abortion is considered to be murder, God doesn't take the time to mention it anywhere in the Bible? He takes the time to spell out what kinds of clothes one should wear and what foods can be eaten but abortion isn't even mentioned once.

In defense of the Bible...when it was written, did optional abortions even exist? It would be impossible for the writers of the Bible to write prohibiting a procedure that didn't exist. As the Bible is a book written by men with the knowledge said men had at the time, it doesn't surprise me there is no direct prohibition of abortion.

That implies that either of you actually think.

I think you meant to say neither, unless you have switched to compliments in a desperate attempt to confuse your opponents.

At any rate, I think it is rather insane that they are not allowing for an abortion. To make it clear, I only support abortion in a case where either the mother and/or child will not live, or will be terribly harmed during the birth. As well as instances of rape and the like. This instance falls under the "I see no reason why there shouldn't be an abortion" type.

For Cluckinstein, an analogy:

You have a drinking glass on the table, you fill it with water, and drink. It is nice and refreshing. weee..
Do you drink the water? I dont see why you wouldn't.

Or

You have a shattered glass on the table, it cannot hold water, and will cut up your mouth should you attempt to drink it.
Do you try and drink the water? Maybe if you were masochistic..

In defense of the Bible...when it was written, did optional abortions even exist?

Certainly. Stomping hard on the belly was known well before the Bible was written. Crude, but effective.

Then where do we stop?

This baby is going to be born with Downs Syndrome. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born blind. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born with brown eyes. Abort it.

This baby is going to be born female. Abort it.

Where are you going to draw the line? Hmmm?

Aborting a foetus that would be a stillborn, or die within minutes of birth is NOT the same as aborting a child simply for being female. The child is aborted because it's NOT going to survive. Period.

And question, how do you even know if a baby is going to be born with brown eyes? Unless both parents have that genetic attribute, it's not a guarantee that the child will have any eye colour. Further, why would people abort it for eye colour? That is the dumbest assertion I've ever seen.

Some cultures already abort foetuses for being female. That argument holds no water. It's done. It's sexist yes.

A child born blind will survive; one born with Downs will likewise survive too. However, the instinctive nature of humans make us want a strong, healthy foetus. Natural selection.

People want children who can have a 'chance' in life. The child with no chance cannot create another.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

Too bad men can't be faced with the same consequence when they get that o-so-horny feeling. Men are just are responsible as women when it comes to sex.

If sex is going to result in children, then make birth control mandatory unless the people want children. Give every post-puberty girl birth control pills until she is ready to conceive.

Improve sex ed; people are going to have sex anyway, give them the knowledge. People who know are less likely to have children young, and will be the ones who actively use contraception unless procreating.

Certainly. Stomping hard on the belly was known well before the Bible was written. Crude, but effective.

point taken.

I suspect that he's playing the devil's advocate, but I'm not sure. Either way, it's earned him a spot on my ignore list. :)

I don't think it's a good idea to gloat about someone being on your ignore list. It's better to just put him there and be done with it.

In defense of the Bible...when it was written, did optional abortions even exist? It would be impossible for the writers of the Bible to write prohibiting a procedure that didn't exist. As the Bible is a book written by men with the knowledge said men had at the time, it doesn't surprise me there is no direct prohibition of abortion.

Yep, abortion's always been around. If my memory serves me correctly the Greek colony of Cyrene made a lot of money by exporting a local herb which could be taken to induce an abortion. The Didache (a non-canonical early Christian text) does expressly mention abortion.

Certainly. Stomping hard on the belly was known well before the Bible was written. Crude, but effective.

There was other methods, including lots of activity or starvation which would cause miscarriage...then you have pins and needles....all of which seem like terrible ways to have an abortion.

If people are going to get one it should be by a doctor and not some back-alley stranger who could kill you or worse (yes I believe there is worse things then death...).

If it was merely an inconvenience, I wouldn't say abortion would be the straight out answer. But in this case, I'd say it's necessary.

And gotta admire Cluichstan's Bushevik "pro-life" stance too. He probably thought Terri Schiavo was just taking a nap.

This reminds me of a 16 year old co-worker I had. She had already gotten pregnant twice in the past year, with two abortions, and was on her third preganacy, but the doctors could only have two abortions a year. How did she solve this problem? She drank herself to sleep every night untill the fetus... well, I'm sure you can guess. To give you the true character of this person, she had admitted to coming on to -dogs- at several points in her life.

This reminds me of a 16 year old co-worker I had. She had already gotten pregnant twice in the past year, with two abortions, and was on her third preganacy, but the doctors could only have two abortions a year. How did she solve this problem? She drank herself to sleep every night untill the fetus... well, I'm sure you can guess. To give you the true character of this person, she had admitted to coming on to -dogs- at several points in her life.

how is this the same as a woman being prohibited from having an abortion even though her baby is dead?

Does the girl in your story have issues...certainly...but...she had every choice to use birth control, and NOT get pregnant that 3rd time...this woman (girl) referred to in the OP didn't make the choice to give her child anacephaly.

In defense of the Bible...when it was written, did optional abortions even exist? It would be impossible for the writers of the Bible to write prohibiting a procedure that didn't exist. As the Bible is a book written by men with the knowledge said men had at the time, it doesn't surprise me there is no direct prohibition of abortion.

"Abortion was legal in Greek and early Roman society until the third century A.D. It was outlawed in the early part of that century by emperor Caracalla “in response to concerns there were not enough upper-class Romans being born to sustain Rome’s vast empire.” It is about at this time when the contemporary debate over the beginnings of life becomes more prominent in the historical record."


http://www.cybercastnewsservice.com/facts/2002/facts20020822.asp

"The first big issue is: Were Birth Control and Abortions Available to Ancient Women? Yes. They are referenced in texts contemporary with the bible. Most of these texts are Greek or Roman. Gynecology, for example, was written by Soranus around 98CE, the Hippocratic Writings by Hippocrates generated between 430-330BCE, and De Materia Medica by Dioscorides was written around 30-40CE. These all provide some kind of birth control or abortion method (Houston.) Scrolls found in Egypt dating to 1900BCE, describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age (Catholic.com). Another source gives examples from Greek botanist Theophrastus (370-288 BCE) who studied silphium, an ancient 'wonder drug' known for having abortive qualities. There is also anecdotal evidence from the first century by way of Catullus. Catullus was a Roman poet who wondered how many kisses he and his girlfriend might enjoy. "As many grains of sand as there are on Cyrene's silphium shores." (Islam.com) In Aristophanes' 421 BCE comedy The Peace Hermes provides Trigaius with a female companion. Trigaius is worried she may become pregnant. "Not if you add a dose of pennyroyal," advises Hermes. In the Greek myth of Persephone and Hades pomegranate is alluded to as a contraceptive (IslamOnline.) Kathleen London of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute sums it up best:
"Since Ancient times, people have been attempting to control the sizes of their families. Clearly, men and women have wanted to control the number of their offspring for physical, emotional, social, and economic reasons and they have taken responsibility for attempting to use various methods of contraception.""
http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=9891&NLID=166

exodus 21:22-25This web page addresses these questions. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

wow, you learn something new every day.

I'm glad I didn't stand up on the podium and claim that without a doubt, abortion didn't exist...I would have been horribly embarrassed.

Thank you all for educating me today...I appreciate it.

This web page addresses these questions. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

This site gives 10 different quotes dealing with the unborn and God, for those who want to follow that discussion.

how is this the same as a woman being prohibited from having an abortion even though her baby is dead?

Does the girl in your story have issues...certainly...but...she had every choice to use birth control, and NOT get pregnant that 3rd time...this woman (girl) referred to in the OP didn't make the choice to give her child anacephaly.

... I was kinda hoping you weren't gonna call me on that, yes I see the difference, and I completely agree that it is her choice... I just wanted to share the story. :)

wow, you learn something new every day.

I'm glad I didn't stand up on the podium and claim that without a doubt, abortion didn't exist...I would have been horribly embarrassed.

Thank you all for educating me today...I appreciate it.

Juniper berry tea was the Stone Age version, if I recall correctly.

I don't think it's a good idea to gloat about someone being on your ignore list. It's better to just put him there and be done with it.

Seeing as I had just placed him on the ignore list, I wouldn't call my post gloating, but rather a statement of fact.

As a rule, when I put a well-known poster on my ignore list (infrequent occurence), I will make one post to state what I have done, and then drop the subject. That's what I did with Corneliu, that's what I just did with Cluich.

That will be all.

... I was kinda hoping you weren't gonna call me on that, yes I see the difference, and I completely agree that it is her choice... I just wanted to share the story. :)
So to create an emotional argument in your favor, you dismissed facts and made a comparison you know was wrong? Have you considered working for FOX News?

Ugh. After reading this story, I feel like punching something. What the heck is wrong with some people? Just...ugh.

It's a sad story, and I believe it will be overturned by the courts - there is no real reason why she shouldn't be premitted to perform an abortion, especially if she chooses to leave the state. To deny her the possibility of leaving is just... silly.

Correct response: "Oh, no, I'm not leaving the state to get an abortion, I'm going to go see my relatives!"

Because the time it'll take to challenge this might be longer then the rest of the 2nd trimester of pregnancy, which means it'll be a dilation and extraction abortion, which is illegal in much more places. Or it might even last longer then the pregnancy.

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html

I tend to lose the little reason I have over this kind of thing. Oddly enough it hasnt faded with age....

How very sad. This may surprise people here but I agree with the girl's plight.

So we should practice eugenics now? Wonderful.

EXCUSE me? Did you just seriously call not giving birth to something that isn't even ALIVE (It needs a brain to be naturally alive. Now it's basically a corpse.) eugenics?

That's an obvious strawman, and it sounds crazier then most strawman arguments do.

i thought that it was a common practice to screen fetuses wich have a high risk for a disability (when the mother is old, when there is a history of disabled people in the family etc).
and why would you want her to carry the baby? it's going to die anyway.

Because he appears to have a thing for forcing woman to have corpses.

This web page addresses these questions. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

even if their explanation made sense in light of jewish tradition (which it doesn't) and the nature of premature birth due to being hit while living 2600 years ago (honestly, the expectation of regular births at the time was leaning towards death), then the passage still ranks these magically surviving fetuses as less than full humans due to the fact that there is a fine rather than some more eye for eye type punishment for the trauma.

but honestly, the site writes this without thinking it odd:

if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

oh those hebrews and their neonatal intensive care units.

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html

I tend to lose the little reason I have over this kind of thing. Oddly enough it hasnt faded with age....

Those people are bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

See, I can't follow this line of thought.

If I choose to walk down an alley and get jumped by a mugger, and end up with a knife in my gut, should I just sit there and bleed to death because, after all, I chose to walk down that alley, and these are the consequences?

If I choose to get on a bus, and realise it's the wrong one, should I then remain on it until it reaches the depot, rather than get off at the first stop?

If I walk into a gay bar by mistake, should I resign myself to a night of man-love instead of finding another bar?

We have choices, and there are consequences, but consequences can be mitigated.

Cripes, I hate stories like this. Makes me mad at the United States for real.

Cripes, I hate stories like this. Makes me mad at the United States for real.

Actually, it's Ireland, unless I'm mistaken. Not the US.

EXCUSE me? Did you just seriously call not giving birth to something that isn't even ALIVE (It needs a brain to be naturally alive. Now it's basically a corpse.) eugenics?

That's an obvious strawman, and it sounds crazier then most strawman arguments do.

He's a Bushevik. Protect the unborn no matter what, until they're old enough to be deployed to Iraq.

Actually, it's Ireland, unless I'm mistaken. Not the US.

You are not mistaken, it is the Leinster region of Ireland.

I am amused how some people see something bad and jump to the conclusion that it is happening in the U.S. Though, generally they are right.

Of course, that doesn't take much, now, does it? :rolleyes:



And at pretty much every stage, not having sex is less risky than having sex.

If you're gonna roll the dice, deal with the results.

And while we're at it, why don't we take the seat belts out of cars? If you're going to risk getting behind the wheel you should take whatever results come your way, right?

Oh! Wait. That's asshole logic.

If I walk into a gay bar by mistake, should I resign myself to a night of man-love instead of finding another bar?

I was resisting getting involved in the forums for fear of losing my IQ, but finally someone made me laugh instead of facepalm. Well said!

On one hand, the pro-choice/pro-life chasm will not be crossed, especially not on the intarwebz when it is easier to press capslock than be rational, or leave the thread altogether instead of responding to debate. It's hard to keep repeating the same obvious (to us) arguments again and again, and hard to read the extremist pro-lifers going nuts online.

On the other hand, if pro-choicers DON'T keep responding, it will mean the end of the fight, and (eventually) the end of civil rights. The view must be put everywhere! Keep debating! You guys are great!

I'm late to the thread, but here's my two cents anyways:

Utter garbage. What they hell is the point in trying to force her to carry to term? Seriously?!?!?!

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life. One is the possibility that you might get pregnant. If you choose to have sexual intercourse, well, shit, that's one of the possible consequences. Deal with it.

But then the scrape "solution" is just so wonderful, isn't it?

Alright, you may have had a point IF you were correct in thinking that:

A)She was aborting a "valid"(I.E. had any chance of survival) fetus

or

B)She wasn't planning on having the child until she found out the child had this.

However, as A) is not true,

and B) appears to be not true, you are wrong.

And at pretty much every stage, not having sex is less risky than having sex.

If you're gonna roll the dice, deal with the results.

Go get laid and then come back to the table.

And while we're at it, why don't we take the seat belts out of cars? If you're going to risk getting behind the wheel you should take whatever results come your way, right?

Oh! Wait. That's asshole logic.
And forget airbags
Or insurance.
Heck any sort of insurance.

You built that house you should deal with the conquences if it catches on fire!

You got hit by a car? You should deal with your death because you were walking near a road.

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."


How is the Health Service Executive stopping her? Did they set up road blocks?

And at pretty much every stage, not having sex is less risky than having sex.

If you're gonna roll the dice, deal with the results.

Ignoring the lunacy of that statement, at what point is being forced to carry a brain dead fetus to term, which will have 0 chance of survival, an acceptable result?

Further more, how would you apply this "roll the dice, deal with the results" philosophy of opposing abortion to cases of rape?

And I refer you to the picture Fass posted. Now, I've never had a child. I am not an expert, but even I can tell that there is something wrong with the fetus in that ultrasound. I cannot imagine going through this diagnosis, but I can tell you that the only people who should have a say in this decision are me, my husband, and my doctor. If the girl is underage, then her parents would be involved. No one else. If she decides to abort, if she decides to carry the baby to term, it's not anyone's business but her own!!!! Not yours, not the politicians, not mine, not the church.

I really don't see why I would have any say, offer my opinion perhaps but it's not my womb. I also don't understand why her parents should have any say at all, despite her age it's not their womb any more than it's mine.

See, I can't follow this line of thought.

If I choose to walk down an alley and get jumped by a mugger, and end up with a knife in my gut, should I just sit there and bleed to death because, after all, I chose to walk down that alley, and these are the consequences?

If I choose to get on a bus, and realise it's the wrong one, should I then remain on it until it reaches the depot, rather than get off at the first stop?

If I walk into a gay bar by mistake, should I resign myself to a night of man-love instead of finding another bar?


You never know, you might find out you enjoy the last one. :p

Bold text makes you right. I defer to the bold text. :rolleyes:

What you should defer to is logic. Which you seem to lack. It will be born dead. Aborting it now or carrying to term makes no difference whatsoever. It's still dead.

People with autism and downs syndrome on the other hand can survive post birth without having to be attached to life support systems. Comparing the two makes you a fool.

Point! Don't know until it's carried to term then, do you? Of course, doctors don't make diagnotic mistakes, though, do they? So yeah, just kill it now.

You just love being an idiot don't you? Tell me, do you know better than doctors when it comes to medical knowledge? Doctors can make mistakes yes. But that's what multiple examinations are for. Examinations that qualified people should make and judge upon

Not mental midgets who have the capacities of a Neanderthal.

Repeat after me:

There are consequences to the choices you make in life.

Thereby if you get mown down by a van in the middle of the road, it's your own damned fault.

And you shouldn't be brought to a hospital.

While I agree with you that the girl should be allowed to have the abortion, I think that you're all overlooking some important parts of the story.
First, this ISN'T a case of the parents trying to controlling what happens to their daughter. The girl's father is dead, and the court awarded temporary custody of the girl to the HSE due to her mother's treatment of her once her pregnancy was revealed. The HSE is her legal guardian at the moment, and, since she is a minor, they are entitled to make major decisions for her. We don't know why they made the decision they did. It could be for religious reasons, there could be some Irish law preventing them from allowing it (if so, then I seriously believe it should be changed). Also, to those of you intent on judging the church, please refrain from insulting an organization based on the actions of individuals who do not represent them and who may not even be Catholic. Historically, the Catholic Church has recognized that, in certain cases, an abortion is "the lesser of two evils". They have historically allowed for women to have abortions in cases where the birth would likely result in the mother's death. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians are Right-Wing Wackos. Pointless name calling, profanity and verbal abuse will not help us determine the morality of this case. Given that the fetus is brain-dead I feel that the HSE should have allowed for the abortion, but, without knowing their reasons for doing so, I cannot point to any direct flaws in their logic as I have not SEEN their logic. Anyways, to wrap it up, this was a bad call but that doesn't mean we have to take a baseball bat to the referee. If this case offends you, why don't you find some way to write/e-mail/contact the HSE and let them know how you feel. That is an action that will change things. Sitting here and flaming each other crispy does nothing except piss people off.

How is the Health Service Executive stopping her? Did they set up road blocks?

At the moment details are sketchy, however as somebody pointed out above, she is a minor and in their custody. The parents are not involved. As far as I understand it, were she over 18 her right to leave the country would be the overiding one and she could go her way. As a minor, by law she only has the right to travel for an abortion if her life is at risk or if she is suicidal. As a result, some fuckwit in the HSE contacted the police, and asked them to ensure that she did not leave the country.

Of course the total bollocks is that the child has to travel at all, as I fail to see why whats more than likely going to be a traumatic experience be made worse by being sent to completly foreign surroundings.

While I agree with you that the girl should be allowed to have the abortion, I think that you're all overlooking some important parts of the story.
First, this ISN'T a case of the parents trying to controlling what happens to their daughter. The girl's father is dead, and the court awarded temporary custody of the girl to the HSE due to her mother's treatment of her once her pregnancy was revealed. The HSE is her legal guardian at the moment, and, since she is a minor, they are entitled to make major decisions for her. We don't know why they made the decision they did. It could be for religious reasons, there could be some Irish law preventing them from allowing it (if so, then I seriously believe it should be changed). Also, to those of you intent on judging the church, please refrain from insulting an organization based on the actions of individuals who do not represent them and who may not even be Catholic. Historically, the Catholic Church has recognized that, in certain cases, an abortion is "the lesser of two evils". They have historically allowed for women to have abortions in cases where the birth would likely result in the mother's death. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians are Right-Wing Wackos. Pointless name calling, profanity and verbal abuse will not help us determine the morality of this case. Given that the fetus is brain-dead I feel that the HSE should have allowed for the abortion, but, without knowing their reasons for doing so, I cannot point to any direct flaws in their logic as I have not SEEN their logic. Anyways, to wrap it up, this was a bad call but that doesn't mean we have to take a baseball bat to the referee. If this case offends you, why don't you find some way to write/e-mail/contact the HSE and let them know how you feel. That is an action that will change things. Sitting here and flaming each other crispy does nothing except piss people off.

I'm not actually debating the actual JUDGMENT of the HSE. It's been my experience, that when the government is involved, it has reasons for making decisions, whether the decision makes sense or not, they "generally" have a basis in law for it. As for blaming the Catholic Church, Ireland is a Catholic nation, many of it's laws, and social policy is steeped in Catholic tradition. NOW, if someone at the HSE went to a Catholic priest, and basically ASKED for permission to allow this child (woman) to obtain an abortion, most likely, the priest would say "have at it" I know several people who are very strict Catholics, they don't use birth control, they don't believe in abortion, etc. All of these couples I know found out that for one reason or another, the baby they were expecting was not going to be viable. They went to their parish priest for counsel, and were counseled to terminate the pregnancy...the Church believes that the mother's mental health is more important than incubating a dead or dying baby.


My PERSONAL beef was with the poster who said the woman should be required to carry to term. It was THAT point of view that I was disagreeing with. It appeared to me, that s/he didn't take the time or energy to educate him/herself of the particulars of the diagnosis, or of the implications of carrying said baby to term. It was the arrogance of the poster that irritated me, and cause me to continue to debate. It seemed to me, that after a brief "the idiots in Ireland" type comments, most of the comments were directed to the same poster. I don't think that any of us think that debating this issue on the NSG forum will change anything. In fact, writing to a government agency in another country won't change anything either. If the close minded poster had not made any comment at all, then the subject would have died a fairly quick death, because there is only so much, "Idiots in Ireland" comments we can all make.

In all actuality, the subject should have died anyway, because the close minded poster quit posting. Whether they got tired of arguing a point that everyone seemed to think was idiotic, or whether they realized they were absolutely wrong, but didn't care to admit it, is unclear. They decided to leave with a "nasty" parting shot at all the people who argued that this woman had a right to mental health, more than a dying baby deserved to be incubated to term.

Anyway...I generally believe that blatant flames, meant to burn someone crispy, are unnecessary, and I try not to do it. However, I also see nothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot. That was my impression of the entire thread...calling a spade a spade.



HOWEVER...if anyone thinks that contacting the HSE will do anything...here is a webpage with their contact information

http://www.hse.ie/en/ContactUs/

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html

I tend to lose the little reason I have over this kind of thing. Oddly enough it hasnt faded with age....
Just another example of how "pro-life" is really about controlling and punishing women.

So we should practice eugenics now? Wonderful.

:eek: Oh no, they're trying to breed a master race of living humans.

Ireland's stance on abortion is really one of the worst things about this country.

And while we're at it, why don't we take the seat belts out of cars? If you're going to risk getting behind the wheel you should take whatever results come your way, right?

Oh! Wait. That's asshole logic.
It's not even "logic."

We don't apply these bullshit concepts to ANY area other than abortion. We don't tell people who have broken their leg while skiing that it's their own fault for choosing to ski and they should "take responsibility" by NOT seeking medical care. Indeed, we generally view it as irresponsible if somebody fails to seek medical care in such situations.

But women are supposed to "be responsible" by giving up any right to make personal decisions. Women should "be responsible" by allowing politicians and untrained laypeople to decide what medical care they receive. It is, somehow, irresponsible for women to consult with actual medical professionals and try to make informed decisions about their own medical care!

It sounds crazy, doesn't it? Well, here's how you make it work:

You have to assume, from the get-go, that women are too stupid to make their own decisions.

Then it all makes sense. Women who are trying to make their own decisions are being irresponsible, because of course they are too stupid and will make bad choices. The responsible thing for a woman to do is to allow other (male) people to make their choices for them.

Ireland's stance on abortion is really one of the worst things about this country.

Indeed. Dare I say the worst? I know of little else that actually tops that.

Indeed. Dare I say the worst? I know of little else that actually tops that.

It could very well be. We do live in a rip-off republic, and the Catholic church has far too much say(IMS most of our primary schools are on land owned by the catholic church and have priests or nuns serving on the board of management), but that doesn't really top a total ban on abortion and only allowing a woman to leave the country to get an abortion if she threatens suicide.

It could very well be. We do live in a rip-off republic, and the Catholic church has far too much say(IMS most of our primary schools are on land owned by the catholic church and have priests or nuns serving on the board of management), but that doesn't really top a total ban on abortion and only allowing a woman to leave the country to get an abortion if she threatens suicide.

Out of interest how do they stop women leaving the country for abortions?

Out of interest how do they stop women leaving the country for abortions?

They can't as the right to travel overides others. An abortion may only be carried out in Ireland due to suicide risk. However, as the female in question is a minor and has not claimed suicidal tendencies, they are seeking to prevent her travelling. Were she 18 this would not arise.

:eek: Oh no, they're trying to breed a master race of living humans.

:D

*Snip BS*

Okay, but when she gives birth to the baby YOU will have to carry its corpse with you for 9 months, since you're obviously NOT a hypocrite. We'll figure out later how to make you feel an 8-pound ham going through a small cavity of yours.

Now shoo.

They can't as the right to travel overides others. An abortion may only be carried out in Ireland due to suicide risk. However, as the female in question is a minor and has not claimed suicidal tendencies, they are seeking to prevent her travelling. Were she 18 this would not arise.

Ugh, I'm always getting things wrong today. Curse my stupidity.

Its things like these that re Inforce my opion that a religion which dictates how people must live their lives is not worh having:sniper: . Maybe the girl should go to another country that is a ;) bit more forward thinking and compassionate.

Its things like these that re Inforce my opion that a religion which dictates how people must live their lives is not worh having:sniper: . Maybe the girl should go to another country that is a ;) bit more forward thinking and compassionate.

You do know that the problem is that she's not being allowed to leave the country?

even if their explanation made sense in light of jewish tradition (which it doesn't) and the nature of premature birth due to being hit while living 2600 years ago (honestly, the expectation of regular births at the time was leaning towards death), then the passage still ranks these magically surviving fetuses as less than full humans due to the fact that there is a fine rather than some more eye for eye type punishment for the trauma.Intresting quote from the site:

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?Still I'm interested to hear what Jewish tradition it doesn't line up with.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?

Because when one takes the whole old testament and its attitude towards pregnant women and unborn children as context, the miscarriage translation makes far more sense.

Because when one takes the whole old testament and its attitude towards pregnant women and unborn children as context, the miscarriage translation makes far more sense.This post doesn't deserve a reply but I'll respond to it anyways. Yasa is used in the OT 1061 times and it never refers to a miscarriage. That's about all the context I need.

Did you read the article?

The baby is basically going to be born with out a brain

She isn't looking for an abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant, she is looking for an abortion because her baby CAN'T survive.

It is cruel to force her to carry a baby that she will never be able to nurture, or raise...to be an incubator for a fetus that can not survive.

Whatever your stance on abortion to end a viable pregnancy...I don't understand forcing someone to carry a baby that is going to die before the womans anesthesia wears of, to term.

Well it's the right thing to do. Premarital sex is evil. Jesus really hates that shit. He's decided to punish this girl for being a slut by making her give birth to a corpse. Giving her an abortion would be denying Jesus his chance to make her squirt out a dead person.

Still I'm interested to hear what Jewish tradition it doesn't line up with.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

also, see rashi's commentary on the passage (http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9882&showrashi=true):



And should men quarrel with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]

and hit a pregnant woman Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).

but there is no fatality with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]

he shall surely be punished to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]

he shall surely be punished Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta]

when the woman’s husband makes demands of him When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.

and he shall give [restitution] The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according to the judges Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta]

Yasa is used in the OT 1061 times and it never refers to a miscarriage. That's about all the context I need.

yes, i find that one should always ignore centuries of tradition within the community of the people who wrote the passage in question and favor the ideas of people with ideological axes to grind instead

Cripes, I hate stories like this. Makes me mad at the United States for real.

This is not about the United State Ilie.

Out of interest how do they stop women leaving the country for abortions?

Given the notification of the police, probably at immigration.

Well well... seems like Cluichstan took off like every other Bushevik confronted with Reality's Liberal Bias.

Mission Accomplished?

:D

I love watching abortion (or any moral issue really) debates on NSG. It's like a destruction derby in debate form. A few pages of people blindly slamming into each other, and in the end all we have to show for the effort involved is a great big smoldering crater filled with smoking debris.

yes, i find that one should always ignore centuries of tradition within the community of the people who wrote the passage in question and favor the ideas of people with ideological axes to grind insteadThe Jews during biblical times practiced another great tradition. Apostasy. You know what god thought of that centuries old tradition? To give you a hint he split the Jewish Monarchy in two, then sent his people into exile, then allowed the Romans to destroy the most holy site in Judaism. Centuries of tradition does not make it right. What a 12th century Jewish scholar said does not make it true. I don't consider the Jewish law like the Talmud to be part of the Bible. God didn't inspire these works.

Some liberal scholars believe that Jesus's body was thrown into a shallow grave and eaten by wild dogs. Does it make it true just because he said it? No if you look at the Bible this clearly is contrary to its message. What this Jewish scholar is saying lines up with later Jewish works, but is contrary to the entire OT.

I love watching abortion (or any moral issue really) debates on NSG. It's like a destruction derby in debate form. A few pages of people blindly slamming into each other, and in the end all we have to show for the effort involved is a great big smoldering crater filled with smoking debris.


Wrong thread to watch then, as all bar one (a notorious idiot)actually agreed that it was wrong to force the person to have to go to term. Its actually rare than we get that level of unaminity.

I never cease to expect the worst from human beings, and human beings have thus far never ceased to disappoint.

To give you a hint he split the Jewish Monarchy in two, then sent his people into exile, then allowed the Romans to destroy the most holy site in Judaism.

"He" did in my bollocks....

What this Jewish scholar is saying lines up with later Jewish works, but is contrary to the entire OT.

this is so clearly insane that i have to wonder if you aren't just fucking around now.
you have read the tanakh, haven't you? maybe just the book of job, even?

and is it your contention that the jewish people do not know what hebrew words mean and haven't in the entire length of time since the christian death cult formed?

Juniper berry tea was the Stone Age version, if I recall correctly.

clan of the cave bear?

clan of the cave bear?

It's been over ten years since I read those books, but I do remember that they were well researched (the endless details about Ayla's clitoris were a bit repetitive, though).

I got it from chatting with herbalists, which may be where Ms. Auel got the information.

Well it's the right thing to do. Premarital sex is evil. Jesus really hates that shit. He's decided to punish this girl for being a slut by making her give birth to a corpse. Giving her an abortion would be denying Jesus his chance to make her squirt out a dead person.

GOD DAMN YEAH! (http://marc.perkel.com/images/bushfinger.jpg)

It's been over ten years since I read those books, but I do remember that they were well researched (the endless details about Ayla's clitoris were a bit repetitive, though).

I got it from chatting with herbalists, which may be where Ms. Auel got the information.

:p

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html

I tend to lose the little reason I have over this kind of thing. Oddly enough it hasnt faded with age....

I believe I can help her extricate, give me her IM so I can send her a photo of me during my dark evil moments (I actually look like pure evil in those photos) then she'll have a miscarriage, if that doesn't work then I'll have to show her anime weight gain.

this is so clearly insane that i have to wonder if you aren't just fucking around now.
you have read the tanakh, haven't you? maybe just the book of job, even?

and is it your contention that the jewish people do not know what hebrew words mean and haven't in the entire length of time since the christian death cult formed?Sure I've read plenty. No one of your main poinst was that the website I linked too went contrary to thousands of years of Jewish traditions. What I was trying to get across was yes it is contrary to Jewish writings like the Talmud which isn't apart of the OT. In case you didn't know the Talmud is a collection of rabbinical writings (I'm not sure what your religious affiliation is). That's why I stated Jewish traditions aren't always biblical such as the tradition of worshiping other God's alongside Yahweh aka apostasy.

It isn't insane at all he mistranslated it or some other scholar mistranslated what he was saying. You can believe what you want to believe however even if it goes against the context of the entire OT....

LOLz relevance (http://pregnant2.ytmnd.com/) ;)

mmmmm abortion (http://pregnantkick.ytmnd.com/)

Ok, I'm no longer sugar high, but this ytmnd has a point. http://unfunnyabortion.ytmnd.com/ Why doesn't she destroy the risk of dying at childbirth when it is full developed by hitting herself hard or causing a self induced miscarriage, it's doomed anyway even if it is allowed to be born fully developed so it should be ok. Or would they arrest her for trying to put the child out of it's misery and preventing complications later on that would be pointless due to the child's life expectancy.

Maybe she should have thought of this before having unprotected sex. She is not allowed to play God and decide not to go through with her pregnancy because her baby is not genetically perfect. You might expect such an idea to spring from Hitler's warped mind, bur not from someone who is not fanatically devoted to eugenics. Shame on her.

Maybe she should have thought of this before having unprotected sex. She is not allowed to play God and decide not to go through with her pregnancy because her baby is not genetically perfect. You might expect such an idea to spring from Hitler's warped mind, bur not from someone who is not fanatically devoted to eugenics. Shame on her.

Sicko,

A) she could die

B) Its going to die anyway and it's only going to suffer so its morally better to kill it now

C) Hitler wanted genetically imperfect dead because he hated them, she wants this one dead because she loves it and doesn't want it to suffer and she doesn't want to have to go through all that hardship to keep alive even though it'll die days after birth. So? Shame on her for caring for her health and offspring?

I'm not sure how to tell you this, but firstly, you have the characteristic unsubtlety of all poor trolls. But it's so moreish to respond to you!

Of course, on the off chance that's actually your genuine opinion, allow me a swift retort.

It's dead, Jim.

I'm not sure how to tell you this, but firstly, you have the characteristic unsubtlety of all poor trolls. But it's so moreish to respond to you!

Of course, on the off chance that's actually your genuine opinion, allow me a swift retort.

It's dead, Jim.

So disagreeing makes me a troll? I find the idea that people are forbidding this woman to abort sick. Its going to die anyway, spare her the mental, emotional and physical agony and the agony of the child and put it out of it's misery!

Maybe she should have thought of this before having unprotected sex. She is not allowed to play God and decide not to go through with her pregnancy because her baby is not genetically perfect. You might expect such an idea to spring from Hitler's warped mind, bur not from someone who is not fanatically devoted to eugenics. Shame on her.

Godwin.

So disagreeing makes me a troll? I find the idea that people are forbidding this woman to abort sick. Its going to die anyway, spare her the mental, emotional and physical agony and the agony of the child and put it out of it's misery!

Actually.. I was responding to the actual troll. the one who called the child being dead a "genetic imperfection"

You've just got caught in the post-history crossfire :P

Maybe she should have thought of this before having unprotected sex. She is not allowed to play God and decide not to go through with her pregnancy because her baby is not genetically perfect. You might expect such an idea to spring from Hitler's warped mind, bur not from someone who is not fanatically devoted to eugenics. Shame on her.

The baby isn't genetically imperfect...the baby is malformed...not even a little malformed...it has no higher brain. The only part of the brain that exists is the part that will allow the baby to feel pain, if it should by chance survive birth.

This isn't a birth defect that only happens to women who get pregnant out of wed lock, or by accident. It can happen to any woman at any time.

I would LOVE to know the gender of the people arguing that this poor woman should carry the baby to term. If I am surprised, and find out that either of them are female, I would love to know if they have ever been pregnant.

As someone who has had children, and suffered more miscarriages than I care to remember, given the information that my baby would not survive more than a couple of days, if that, and will most likely be in incredible pain for the time that they do survive and having an abortion...I would choose abortion. I love my children dearly, and they are not perfect, genetically or otherwise. I wouldn't for a minute trade them for a child that is perfect. If I had had the information I have now, before they were born, I would still have carried them to term. I wouldn't choose to abort a child with down syndrome, or any other genetic or other birth defect, if it was compatible with life. The baby in the story (and if you'll notice, I use the word baby, not fetus...I am not trying to make this life any less than it is-unfortunately, the baby doesn't have a life) is not going to live. Do a google image search for anacephaly. I won't post them, as they are fairly disturbing. You will find pictures of the babies, as well as ultrasound pictures. It isn't something that can be misdiagnosed. The baby has no brain.

I would like for someone who is in the camp of "don't let her abort, make her carry the baby to term, only to deliver a dead baby, or watch her baby die" to explain to me why this is the best option. Please make it something better than "if you have sex, you have to pay the consequences." If she were being blocked from an abortion and was carrying a perfectly healthy and viable baby...then that would fly as a fairly standard pro-life/anti-choice argument. This is really another story all together. Please help me understand your beliefs.

So disagreeing makes me a troll? I find the idea that people are forbidding this woman to abort sick. Its going to die anyway, spare her the mental, emotional and physical agony and the agony of the child and put it out of it's misery!

He was responding to FAG, not you. Bisa, remember to use Quote next time, it is your friend.

even though it'll die days after birth.

We'll all die eventually; it's only a question of when. Where do you draw the line; at which point can a mother kill her baby? At 5 seconds after birth, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades? Hell, maybe you believe that a 17-year-old girl has the right to kill every single living human being, being she's only expediting the process of their death. That's an absurd notion; you can't decree that someone is fit to die simply because he won't be capable of living a long and fulfilling life. Only God has the right to decide how long someone's life should be.

He was responding to FAG, not you. Bisa, remember to use Quote next time, it is your friend.

oh, that's exquisite. a potentially genuine god-fearing, pro-life, stance-issue person with a name acronym like FAG. Do you have to make a new nation for things like that?

Though I feel the urge to quote bill hicks. "Instead of locking arms and protesting clinics, shouldn't you show your commitment and lock arms and block cemetaries?"

And yes, quotemarks are the future.

postzonkforcompression

It's not even alive right now. It's just connected to someone who is. it's alive the same way cancer is alive.

But, you have a point. When god (the Judeochristian god, naturally) comes down from the heavens and decrees when that baby has to 'die', I'm sure we'll take it into consideration.

We'll all die eventually; it's only a question of when. Where do you draw the line; at which point can a mother kill her baby? At 5 seconds after birth, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades? Hell, maybe you believe that a 17-year-old girl has the right to kill every single living human being, being she's only expediting the process of their death. That's an absurd notion; you can't decree that someone is fit to die simply because he won't be capable of living a long and fulfilling life. Only God has the right to decide how long someone's life should be.

This has to be the most absurd thing in your post-history to date.

The fetus is brain dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

We'll all die eventually; it's only a question of when. Where do you draw the line; at which point can a mother kill her baby? At 5 seconds after birth, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades? Hell, maybe you believe that a 17-year-old girl has the right to kill every single living human being, being she's only expediting the process of their death. That's an absurd notion; you can't decree that someone is fit to die simply because he won't be capable of living a long and fulfilling life. Only God has the right to decide how long someone's life should be.

Nah, God lost all power over a human being's lifespan once we figured out medicine. We can choose to abort this fetus to spare this poor girl further pain and suffering, rather than forcing her to deliver a dead baby. If you think God really wants any person to have to go through that, that's cool. Just don't let your beliefs scar a person for life.

I stand corrected on the baby feeling pain.

When I was in college, more than 10 years ago, the information was different.

That doesn't, however, change my stance. I still believe that it is cruel to force this poor woman to carry the baby to term.

Maybe she should have thought of this before having unprotected sex. She is not allowed to play God and decide not to go through with her pregnancy because her baby is not genetically perfect. You might expect such an idea to spring from Hitler's warped mind, bur not from someone who is not fanatically devoted to eugenics. Shame on her.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s150/katganistan_photos/ItsDEADJim.jpg

The baby isn't genetically imperfect...the baby is malformed...not even a little malformed...it has no higher brain. The only part of the brain that exists is the part that will allow the baby to feel pain, if it should by chance survive birth.

This isn't a birth defect that only happens to women who get pregnant out of wed lock, or by accident. It can happen to any woman at any time.

I would LOVE to know the gender of the people arguing that this poor woman should carry the baby to term. If I am surprised, and find out that either of them are female, I would love to know if they have ever been pregnant.

As someone who has had children, and suffered more miscarriages than I care to remember, given the information that my baby would not survive more than a couple of days, if that, and will most likely be in incredible pain for the time that they do survive and having an abortion...I would choose abortion. I love my children dearly, and they are not perfect, genetically or otherwise. I wouldn't for a minute trade them for a child that is perfect. If I had had the information I have now, before they were born, I would still have carried them to term. I wouldn't choose to abort a child with down syndrome, or any other genetic or other birth defect, if it was compatible with life. The baby in the story (and if you'll notice, I use the word baby, not fetus...I am not trying to make this life any less than it is-unfortunately, the baby doesn't have a life) is not going to live. Do a google image search for anacephaly. I won't post them, as they are fairly disturbing. You will find pictures of the babies, as well as ultrasound pictures. It isn't something that can be misdiagnosed. The baby has no brain.

I would like for someone who is in the camp of "don't let her abort, make her carry the baby to term, only to deliver a dead baby, or watch her baby die" to explain to me why this is the best option. Please make it something better than "if you have sex, you have to pay the consequences." If she were being blocked from an abortion and was carrying a perfectly healthy and viable baby...then that would fly as a fairly standard pro-life/anti-choice argument. This is really another story all together. Please help me understand your beliefs.

Seconded, that was what I was trying to say.

Secondly you don't want her coming back as a pontianak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontianak_%28folklore%29) and going Norman Bate's mum on everyone who denied her an abortion.

We'll all die eventually; it's only a question of when. Where do you draw the line; at which point can a mother kill her baby? At 5 seconds after birth, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades? Hell, maybe you believe that a 17-year-old girl has the right to kill every single living human being, being she's only expediting the process of their death. That's an absurd notion; you can't decree that someone is fit to die simply because he won't be capable of living a long and fulfilling life. Only God has the right to decide how long someone's life should be.

God making any decision of such magnitude would infringe on Free Will. Essentially we feel for all things that possess cognitive thinking because we relate to them, we relate to them so we can mutually use each other, we do that because it's benificial.

An infant that won't survive on thoutside world will:
Risk the mother.
Waste time and money of the mother.
Force the mother to go through the burden of labor.

She chose to have unprotected sex, sure, but honestly it's our god given right to act like animals because we were born as such. It's arrogant and utterly wrong to think we are in control of our born desires.

We'll all die eventually; it's only a question of when. Where do you draw the line; at which point can a mother kill her baby? At 5 seconds after birth, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades? Hell, maybe you believe that a 17-year-old girl has the right to kill every single living human being, being she's only expediting the process of their death. That's an absurd notion; you can't decree that someone is fit to die simply because he won't be capable of living a long and fulfilling life. Only God has the right to decide how long someone's life should be.



Even if you assume that your God decides that, I'm pretty sure that since he decided that that fetus should not have a functioning brain, that he doesn't want it to live, so trying to prolong the prolong the situation is going against his will to have the fetus be dead.

This is the great thing about NSG. No matter how completley indefensible a certain postion may be, there is always someone espousing it.

Seconded, that was what I was trying to say.

Secondly you don't want her coming back as a pontianak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontianak_%28folklore%29) and going Norman Bate's mum on everyone who denied her an abortion.
You know, to be entirely honest, sometimes I'm not so sure I don't want that. It would only be justice, after all.

Ignorant trolls like Cluichstan and FAG (;)) are so in love with the idea of "consequences for our actions," well maybe it's time for people like them to suffer some consequences too. Make them think before they shoot of their mouths or hand down unbelievably stupid official decisions.

Maybe she should have thought of this before having unprotected sex. She is not allowed to play God and decide not to go through with her pregnancy because her baby is not genetically perfect.

I think the lack of a brain would be consdered rather a greater drawback than what you imply with "not genetically pefect". I do understand your empathy with the unborn in this case, however.


That's an absurd notion; you can't decree that someone is fit to die simply because he won't be capable of living a long and fulfilling life.

Well for starters, if theres no brain theres no "he".

It isn't insane at all he mistranslated it or some other scholar mistranslated what he was saying.

evidence?

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb...

Luckily I live in a country that allows minors to abort without even needing the consent of their parents - a talk with a doc and a psychologist is enough: if a young woman gets pregnant, she's responsible enough to decide either to keep the foetus or to abort (free of charge). Also, she is given the choice to carry the foetus, and then refuse to recognise it as its own, leaving the baby to the social services for adoption.
I think this law is a great success: since we have it, the abortion ratio is constantly decreasing, and the plague of clandestine abortion is almost totally over.

What part of this do you people not get? This baby is NOT ALIVE. It is DEAD. This is an EX-BABY. She might as well give birth to a sponge cake, because that cake has as much higher brain function.

This last February I had a miscarriage, the fetus stopped growing at 7 weeks and basically stayed inside me, while dead, for 6 weeks before my body realized that something was hinky and started the miscarriage process. The hardest part about the whole experience (aside from the ultrasound where I actually got to see that it was dead) was the three days I had to wait between becoming aware of the situation at the docs and the operation to get everything cleaned out. It wasn't a fetus, or even a baby, anymore. It was a corpse. INSIDE OF ME. I had some really nasty nightmares.

To have a dead baby still growing inside you, to be obliged to carry that for not only days but months and months and then be legally forced to give birth to a child that not only will die within a week, but does not have a BRAIN and has never and never will? Literally giving birth to the living dead? That's not just wrong, that's cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously.

There's an arguement for pro-choice in many situations, but to put another human being through this kind of trauma out of pure spite because they had unprotected sex? I can't even begin to express how despicable that is.

Pro-choice allows for abortions after rape because of the trauma attached... and that child doesn't even have to have anything wrong with it. This is a billion times worse. How can one not see that? You can kill the baby because the father was a rapist, but not because it has no brain and will know nothing but pain for less than a week after birth and then die? What kind of stance is that?

I wish there was something I could do to affect the legislature there. I think this whole thing is reprehensible and unnecessary.

This is an EX-BABY.

This parrot sketch reference is in extremely poor taste. I approve.

An update of sorts

"As I was lying on the bed for the scan and the nurse was showing me various parts of the baby on the monitor, it became clear that the baby had no head and a consultant was called," she said. He explained that the baby would probably be stillborn. "

"He confirmed that the baby would not survive outside the womb and I was informed by him that the name of the condition is anencephaly," she said. She then had researched the condition on the internet.

"I was extremely distressed by this news and it was most upsetting for me to contemplate carrying a baby to term in circumstances where it has been condemned to death once born. It seems to me most inhumane to expect me to do so."

But when Miss D told a social worker of her intention to seek a termination, the social worker said she was going to see the Health Service Executive (HSE) solicitor about the situation.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1822777&issue_id=15575

To have a dead baby still growing inside you, to be obliged to carry that for not only days but months and months and then be legally forced to give birth to a child that not only will die within a week, but does not have a BRAIN and has never and never will? Literally giving birth to the living dead? That's not just wrong, that's cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously.
.

Despite being male, single, childless and an ex-builder, thats preciselly what occurred to me. Now if that can dawn on me, what the fuck is wrong with the ratbag(s) involved?