• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Should a woman only have equal right to life with her foetus/unborn child ?


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,625
Website
www.google.com
I'm leaving side the substantive issue of abortion here, and focusing just on the "X case" , where there's a threat to the life of the mother. Here's exactly what Bunreacht says

BUNREACHT NA hIREANN
3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
So let's say a woman is 10 weeks pregnant and a medical emergency presents:

  1. There is a significant threat to life of the mother
  2. This threat can only be alleviated by a termination


Now the X case means if say the threat is 50%...then termination. But what if the Doctors assessed the threat at 1 in 3.... this means the mother would have to tough it out.

Would you accept such odds on your life ?

What if you knew from gene screening pre pregnancy that there was a 50/50 chance of the 1 in 3 threat...would you get pregnant ?

Personally I'm inclined to favour the mother, and if she was to be under any significant risk, that termination be allowed - but Bunreacht wouldn't even allow that.

cYp

/MOD/ Merged this here http://www.politics.ie/forum/united-kingdom/201160-95-uk-abortions-mental-physical-health-mother.html /MOD/
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Al Gebra

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
6,023
I'm leaving side the substantive issue of abortion here, and focusing just on the "X case" , where there's a threat to the life of the mother. Here's exactly what Bunreacht says

BUNREACHT NA hIREANN


So let's say a woman is 10 weeks pregnant and a medical emergency presents:

  1. There is a significant threat to life of the mother
  2. This threat can only be alleviated by a termination


Now the X case means if say the threat is 50%...then termination. But what if the Doctors assessed the threat at 1 in 3.... this means the mother would have to tough it out.

Would you accept such odds on your life ?

What if you knew from gene screening pre pregnancy that there was a 50/50 chance of the 1 in 3 threat...would you get pregnant ?

Personally I'm inclined to favour the mother, and if she was to be under any significant risk, that termination be allowed - but Bunreacht wouldn't even allow that.

cYp
The main problems, as far as I can see, are 1. The foetus' ultimate viability is not considered or taken into account and 2. the equal right aspect opens the mother up to risks she would not face if abortion were legal.
The two points should be interlinked. If the foetus is not viable and will die then there seems to be little reason in risking the mother's life or health.
I've made this point on several of the 1,000,000,000 abortion threads that the doctrine of double effect seems to be applied in these cases.
No direct termination of the foetus is permissible. A salpingectomy in the case of an ectopic or hysterectomy in the case of uterine cancer would be permissible as the death of the foetus is a secondary effect of the procedure.
The equal status provision is violated if the foetus is directly killed in order to save the woman. You are effectively choosing one over the other and that violates the article.
 

Davidoff

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,485
I have no time for the tortured logic of the X case. All those religious extremists can take their legal alphabet and shove it.

A ball of tissue the size of a grape is not a person.

If a woman chooses to terminate, she should be allowed to do so, and the State should make civilized provision for those who make that choice.
 

ArtyisBack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
6,090
I have no time for the tortured logic of the X case. All those religious extremists can take their legal alphabet and shove it.

A ball of tissue the size of a grape is not a person.

If a woman chooses to terminate, she should be allowed to do so, and the State should make civilized provision for those who make that choice.
Does anyone still believe "the ball of tissue" line?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,171
I believe that the life of a fully-developed, fully-conscious human being is more important than the life of a partially-developed, non-conscious human being.
 

Grey Area

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
4,855
"the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration."

Was the above not inserted into the Constitution last Saturday?
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,559
"the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration."

Was the above not inserted into the Constitution last Saturday?
I think that the SC would differentiate between a child and an unborn child. There is also a context to that line.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,559
I believe that the life of a fully-developed, fully-conscious human being is more important than the life of a partially-developed, non-conscious human being.
Are you working off a conscious interests line there?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
223,358
I believe that the life of a fully-developed, fully-conscious human being is more important than the life of a partially-developed, non-conscious human being.
I believe that yourself and indeed any fully conscious human being have the right and the ability to speak up for yourselves.
 

Glaucon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
8,340
I presume the OP is referring to the following case:

Two investigations are under way into the death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant, at University Hospital Galway last month.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.
Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital - The Irish Times - Wed, Nov 14, 2012

This case is so heinous, so shameful, so obscene, that this government simply must do its job and legislate forthwith so outrages like this never, ever recur. A woman is dead because of loons who, for ostensibly religious reasons, denied a woman a life saving abortion. They are provided succor in this démarche by a cowardly state which refuses to do its job and make clear the right that a woman has to an abortion when her life is in danger, a right already established and in situ by the courts.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,407
I believe that the life of a fully-developed, fully-conscious human being is more important than the life of a partially-developed, non-conscious human being.
Where does that end? What about someone in a coma, switch off the machine so that someone who is not in a coma can avail of the benefits of the electricity saved?
 

mr. jings

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
8,091
Where does that end? What about someone in a coma, switch off the machine so that someone who is not in a coma can avail of the benefits of the electricity saved?
Ridiculous whataboutery. Why not start a thread on what does or does not constitute brain stem death, or maybe even just stay on topic?
 
Last edited:

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
I think that the SC would differentiate between a child and an unborn child. There is also a context to that line.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child doesn't.
"the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"
Convention on the Rights of the Child
 

ArtyisBack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
6,090
I presume the OP is referring to the following case:



Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital - The Irish Times - Wed, Nov 14, 2012

This case is so heinous, so shameful, so obscene, that this government simply must do its job and legislate forthwith so outrages like this never, ever recur. A woman is dead because of loons who, for ostensibly religious reasons, denied a woman a life saving abortion. They are provided succor in this démarche by a cowardly state which refuses to do its job and make clear the right that a woman has to an abortion when her life is in danger, a right already established and in situ by the courts.
There is already a thread on that. The reason why the woman is dead is under investigation. You are not privy to that and have no idea whatsoever as to the why she died. In short you are making it up to have a good rant. Which is basically using a womans death for your agenda. Nice of you.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,632
I'm leaving side the substantive issue of abortion here, and focusing just on the "X case" , where there's a threat to the life of the mother. Here's exactly what Bunreacht says

BUNREACHT NA hIREANN


So let's say a woman is 10 weeks pregnant and a medical emergency presents:

  1. There is a significant threat to life of the mother
  2. This threat can only be alleviated by a termination


Now the X case means if say the threat is 50%...then termination. But what if the Doctors assessed the threat at 1 in 3.... this means the mother would have to tough it out.

Would you accept such odds on your life ?

What if you knew from gene screening pre pregnancy that there was a 50/50 chance of the 1 in 3 threat...would you get pregnant ?

Personally I'm inclined to favour the mother, and if she was to be under any significant risk, that termination be allowed - but Bunreacht wouldn't even allow that.

cYp
The respective rights are equal, but that doesn't translate into medical odds. At that stage you're coin-tossing.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,407
Ridiculous whataboutery. Why not start a thread on what does or does not constitute brain stem death, or maybe even just stay on topic?
Ah right, ignore the inconveniencies in the comfortable definitions.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top