Pro-life or Pro-choice

[glassjester]

A summary of the Church's teaching (and the pro-life stance) on the matter:

”If,” said Pope Pius in 1951, “the saving of the life of the future mother … should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions — granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”

 

[gcthomas]

From: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...nder-which-she-could-legally-have-been-saved/

Halappanavar's pregnancy was at 17 weeks, and in 2012 the earliest surviving delivery was 22 weeks. Despite what the Catholic Herald would like you to believe, there was NO CHANCE of survival with inducing a delivery. Induction in this case would have legally and morally been an abortion of the pregnancy, since death would have been the direct result of the action. It is weasel words to say otherwise.

No, but more are than most people who are opposed to abortions realize . There are some situations where the doctors have no choice but to perform an emergency abortion or neither the woman nor the baby will survive . C-sections will not work in every situation Better to save the life of the woman than cause both to die .

Examples?

Example given. Halappanavar could have been saved if the standard treatment had been offered, which included an abortion to save the mother.

 

[Stripe]

No. No they didn't. See the case law you referenced below.Crikey, Stripey. You have quoted another source you didn't bother to read.Here is the start of your linked case:

1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants against an order made by Costello J. in the High Court on the 17 th February, 1992, which was made in these proceedings upon an application for an interlocutory injunction which by consent of the parties was treated as the hearing of the action.2. The first defendant is a fourteen and a half year old girl and the second and third defendants are her parents.…5. The Attorney General on the 7th February, 1992, having applied exparte to Costello J. in the High Court, obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant and the other defendants from leaving the country or from arranging or carrying out a termination of the pregnancy of the first defendant. At the time that order was ready to be served on the defendants they apparently had left this country and were in England arranging for the carrying out of the termination of the pregnancy. Upon being informed whilst there of the order which had been made by the court, they returned to this country.6. The interim injunction was to last until the 10th February, 1992, or until further order made in the meantime.

The family had taken the girl to England to procure abortion, and the high court issued an injunction to prevent them from travelling abroad and from procuring the abortion. The Supreme Court overturned the injunction, allowing them to go to England for the abortion. Abortions in Ireland remained unavailable due to the lack of clarity in the decision, an issue which was resolved only two decades later when the legal uncertainty was resolved with the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

:doh:

There's no helping some people.

From my link (something you failed to supply — relying instead on your own assertions — and which you failed to properly parse):

In short (1) The Attorney General acted properly in bringing the matter before the court. (2) The terms of the Eighth Amendment, now contained in Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 contemplate lawful abortion within the State. (3) Despite the absence of regulating legislation, the judicial arm of government must seek to enforce the guarantee. (4) On the facts of this case, the mother is not to be prevented from having an abortion. (5) In any event, she cannot be lawfully prevented from leaving the State, whatever her purpose in doing so. (6) The failure of the legislature to provide for the regulation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 has significantly added to the problem.

Until the law was passed no doctor could be sure any particular abortion was legal, so they were not offered.

Again, your word is not good enough:

Not every abortion, however, was regarded as unlawful. In Rex v. Bourne [1939] 1 K.B. 687 a London surgeon stood trial in the Central Criminal Court in London on a charge of unlawfully procuring the abortion of a very young girl who had become pregnant as a result of rape. The jury were directed inter alia that it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the operation was not performed in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the girl and they were directed that the surgeon did not have to wait until the patient was in peril of immediate death. It did not matter that his diagnosis could be wrong provided that there was a real and substantial risk to the girl’s life if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION]

You said "(6) The failure of the legislature to provide for the regulation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 has significantly added to the problem."

I said "Until the law was passed no doctor could be sure any particular abortion was legal, so they were not offered."

Can you see any difference there? There was no clarifying law, and doctors could not be sure they were free from prosecution, so abortions weren't offered. No clarifying law until 2013.

As I said.

Please read carefully, Stripe. It'll stop you looking as stupid. Or maybe get a friend to read it for you if the words are too long … :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Until the law was passed no doctor could be sure any particular abortion was legal, so they were not offered.

Your assertions are not good enough.

Not every abortion, however, was regarded as unlawful. In Rex v. Bourne [1939] 1 K.B. 687 a London surgeon stood trial in the Central Criminal Court in London on a charge of unlawfully procuring the abortion of a very young girl who had become pregnant as a result of rape. The jury were directed inter alia that it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the operation was not performed in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the girl and they were directed that the surgeon did not have to wait until the patient was in peril of immediate death. It did not matter that his diagnosis could be wrong provided that there was a real and substantial risk to the girl’s life if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

 

[gcthomas]

Your assertions are not good enough.

Not every abortion, however, was regarded as unlawful. In Rex v. Bourne [1939] 1 K.B. 687 a London surgeon stood trial in the Central Criminal Court in London on a charge of unlawfully procuring the abortion of a very young girl who had become pregnant as a result of rape. The jury were directed inter alia that it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the operation was not performed in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the girl and they were directed that the surgeon did not have to wait until the patient was in peril of immediate death. It did not matter that his diagnosis could be wrong provided that there was a real and substantial risk to the girl’s life if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

I don't understand what this case is supposed to do for your argument. (You do know that London isn't in Ireland, don't you? And they don't have a king?)

 

[RealityJerk]

Only savages kill their offspring in the womb.

Fe-Tus/Off-Spring/Latin. Human offspring.


Civilized people respect the unborn's rights to develop and enter this world, just like they did. It's quite convenient to deprive someone else of their life while in the most vulnerable stage in their human development, when they're totally dependent on their mothers. That's what makes motherhood and women so special and valuable. Worthy of awe and respect. A woman's ability to conceive life in her womb, her precious, sacred womb and give birth to human life. Women are the life bearers, and for that men have respected women and afforded them certain considerations and rights that they themselves don't enjoy. It just seemed reasonable to afford women with a special honor, being that they are the life bearers.

Now unfortunately, in this heathen, godless society that we currently live in, the life bearers have gone rogue. They've rebelled against the natural order. The cosmic design for their gender, by being completely indifferent to their role as life bearers and spitting in the face of mother nature. Slaying the human life in their wombs, in order to avoid their obligations and responsibilities, as women and civilized human beings. The womb has become the grave. A place of death and destruction, rather than birth and life. Savages, that's what you "abortion" proponents are. Creepy baby killers.

I'm pro-choice and pro-life. How can I be both? Simple. Men make the choice when they pull down their zippers and women make the choice when they willingly spread their legs, in response to the open zipper. That's where the choice is. Sex. You choose to have it, you've made your choice. Man-up, Woman-Up, be responsible and don't kill the human life you've created. Have some principles, be civilized. Otherwise, you're just a savage.

 

[Stripe]

I don't understand what this case is supposed to do for your argument. (You do know that London isn't in Ireland, don't you? And they don't have a king?)

Nothing in Irish law prevented proper treatment in the 2012 case.

Their constitution at the time read:

"The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn ... with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother."

Your assertions to the contrary are to be ignored. Moreover, use of such lies by liberal morons like Horn to promote their baby-killing agenda are to be resisted.

 

[gcthomas]

Nothing in Irish law prevented proper treatment in the 2012 case.

Their constitution at the time read:

"The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn ... with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother."

Your assertions to the contrary are to be ignored. Moreover, use of such lies by liberal morons like Horn to promote their baby-killing agenda are to be resisted.

The 8th Ammendment was pushed by religious groups, and it gives Irish citizenship and rights from the moment of conception. Because of this, it was impossible to get an abortion in Ireland. In 2012 4000 women travelled to the UK, and more to the Netherlands.

The case was raised as an example of a lack of abortion opportunities that lead to someone's death. Do you accept that this was the case, or are you going to keep going down legalistis rabbit holes? Abortions might have been legal, possibly, but one was denied to this woman, and she died. Do you think that wasn't true?

(Still, what was the UK court case you quote about? Did you get confused about the London/King, Dublin/President thing? :chuckle: )

 

[JudgeRightly]

My recollection is that she had premature cervical dilation and membrane rupture, which doomed the pregnancy and lead to sepsis risk. Miscarriage means a failure of the pregnancy, not specifically the death of the fœtus, although that was guaranteed.

I still don't understand why the doctors simply didn't just remove the baby if he was still alive. Intentionally killing the baby guarantees that at least one living human being dies, and still does not guarantee, or at the very least, improve the odds, that the mother will survive.

Why stop to kill the baby, GC? Why not just remove the baby, and continue caring for both?

If the pregnancy is doomed, then why risk both lives by keeping the baby inside the mother, if that is what is causing the complications?

 

[Stripe]

The 8th Ammendment was pushed by religious groups, and it gives Irish citizenship and rights from the moment of conception. Because of this, it was impossible to get an abortion in Ireland.

Your assertions fly in the face of the record.

Legal abortions were performed in Ireland prior to the 2013 regulations.

Your assertions do not cut it.

The case was raised as an example of a lack of abortion opportunities that lead to someone's death.

No, it didn't.

The doctors initially did not detect the problem and when they did, they were legally allowed to perform the procedure they went ahead and did.

The controversy was merely a case of liberals seizing any opportunity to push their baby-killing agenda.

...legalistis rabbit holes...

Is that code for a concession on your part?

Still, what was the UK court case you quote about?

What? :AMR:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Only savages kill their offspring in the womb.

Fe-Tus/Off-Spring/Latin. Human offspring.


Civilized people respect the unborn's rights to develop and enter this world, just like they did. It's quite convenient to deprive someone else of their life while in the most vulnerable stage in their human development, when they're totally dependent on their mothers. That's what makes motherhood and women so special and valuable. Worthy of awe and respect. A woman's ability to conceive life in her womb, her precious, sacred womb and give birth to human life. Women are the life bearers, and for that men have respected women and afforded them certain considerations and rights that they themselves don't enjoy. It just seemed reasonable to afford women with a special honor, being that they are the life bearers.

Now unfortunately, in this heathen, godless society that we currently live in, the life bearers have gone rogue. They've rebelled against the natural order. The cosmic design for their gender, by being completely indifferent to their role as life bearers and spitting in the face of mother nature. Slaying the human life in their wombs, in order to avoid their obligations and responsibilities, as women and civilized human beings. The womb has become the grave. A place of death and destruction, rather than birth and life. Savages, that's what you "abortion" proponents are. Creepy baby killers.

I'm pro-choice and pro-life. How can I be both? Simple. Men make the choice when they pull down their zippers and women make the choice when they willingly spread their legs, in response to the open zipper. That's where the choice is. Sex. You choose to have it, you've made your choice. Man-up, Woman-Up, be responsible and don't kill the human life you've created. Have some principles, be civilized. Otherwise, you're just a savage.

In addition to this, even if the choice is removed from the woman, say, in cases of rape or incest, then the response is not to kill the baby, but to kill the rapist, the criminal. You punish the father for the crime(s) he committed, but the innocent child you spare.

Our society today has it backward. We kill the child in punishment for the crime of his father, and then we pamper the criminal.

And will you profane Me among My people ... killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV

 

[gcthomas]

I still don't understand why the doctors simply didn't just remove the baby if he was still alive. Intentionally killing the baby guarantees that at least one living human being dies, and still does not guarantee, or at the very least, improve the odds, that the mother will survive.
..
If the pregnancy is doomed, then why risk both lives by keeping the baby inside the mother, if that is what is causing the complications?

Because inducing a delivery is slow and in the circumstances, dangerous for the mother. The abortion DID involve removing it from the mother, of course. And there was no way to remove it and keep it alive. None at all (0%), at just 17 weeks throught the pregnancy.

JR, delivering the fœtus IS intentionally killing it, as that is the only possible outcome, and that would be known before the attempt.

Why stop to kill the baby, GC? Why not just remove the baby, and continue caring for both?

Care for it? It cannot live, no matter how much you persuaded yourself that a history of having no baby ever living at 17 weeks gestation, or 18, 19, 20 or 21. It isn't a marginal thing worth the attempt, but willful self deception.

 

[gcthomas]

Your assertions fly in the face of the record.

Legal abortions were performed in Ireland prior to the 2013 regulations.

Cite please.

Even since 2013 there have only been about 25 per year, with the law to back them up, in the whole nation. This rate is almost nil, what was it in 2012? I'm sure you have the figures for your assertion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, it wasn't.

The doctors refused to perform the termination of pregnancy because they could still hear its heartbeat. Savita died because of the state of the pregnancy, and the termination would have saved her. The fœtus was not going to live, but Irish law did not allow terminations under any circumstances.

See my post above.

Nope, JR got it demonstrably and completely wrong.

Upshot: the ban on abortion killed this unfortunate woman. The death was caused be Christian pressure on the law makers to prevent abortions under any circumstances. The death was a scandal.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Let's go back to the days when the young woman is in the hospital just after the pregnancy fails.

You are saying, your false dichotomy is, either the woman has an abortion, or she dies.

But there's a third option, that has additional possibilities that become available depending on what happens.

But first, let's look at what you are presenting as the only two options.

If the woman has an abortion, then it is almost guaranteed that at least one human will die.

If the woman does not have an abortion (and then have the baby removed), then at least the mother will die, and the baby will most likely die.

Here is the third option, which depending on what happens afterwards due to things that cannot be controlled, could lead to several different outcomes. Note that the idea is to save both lives, as the Hippocratic Oath states "Also ... I will utterly reject harm and mischief."

Another equivalent phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient". Hippocratic Writings by Lloyd, Geoffrey, ed. (2nd ed.). London: Penguin Books. p. 94. ISBN 0140444513,

- Wikipedia

Ok, so the third option:

Remove the baby from the mother's womb. Then, care for both the mother and the child until each either survives or dies.

If the mother survives after the baby is removed (but not killed) and continued to be cared for, then you have saved at least one life, and the mother can hopefully go on to have more children later. If the baby dies while being cared for, then it is a tragedy, but you can hopefully say that you did the best you could to keep both alive.

If the mother dies, but the baby survives, then you have saved at least one life, and even though it's a tragedy that the mother died, there's nothing inherently wrong with dying, especially if it is caused by complications during pregnancy. During all of this, you continue to care for the baby. If the baby dies, then and only then do you stop caring for it.

If both the mother and baby survive, then you have saved the lives of two human beings.

If both die after removing the baby, then you can say you did everything you could to help them both, but it's a tragedy that they died.

Basically, the goal should be to save both lives. If one or both die while you are caring for them, then it is a tragedy, but hopefully you can say that you did everything in your power to keep them alive.

If your goal is to intentionally kill even one, even to save the other, you are guilty at minimum of conspiracy to murder, and you should be tried, and upon due conviction, executed.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION],

Abortion means to halt a pregnancy in a way that destroys the fœtus. Delivering a 17 well old fœtus IS an abortion, since it is guaranteed to end a pregnancy by destroying the fœtus.

There is no third way that can salvage the conscience, I'm afraid.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because inducing a delivery is slow and in the circumstances,

First of all, I'm not suggesting inducing delivery. Have you never heard of a cesarean section? It's where they remove the baby through an incision in the mother's abdomen.

dangerous for the mother.

The abortion DID involve removing it from the mother, of course.

Of course it does, after killing the human being in the mother's womb.

And there was no way to remove it and keep it alive. None at all (0%), at just 17 weeks through the pregnancy.

Obviously, the baby will die. That I am not denying.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing someone to die. If there is nothing more that you can do for someone who is dying, there is nothing wrong with allowing it to happen.

JR, delivering the fœtus IS intentionally killing it,

If the intent it to not kill the baby, then letting the baby die because there is nothing that can be done to save him or her is not wrong, because the baby is going to die regardless. See my final paragraph in this post. If the mother survives, she can love the baby, so that all the baby knows is the love of his mother. If the baby is going to die regardless of what is done, then allowing the baby to die naturally is the best course of action.

as that is the only possible outcome, and that would be known before the attempt.

If the baby stays in the womb, both mother and child will die.

If the baby is removed, the mother will survive, but because of the lack of a way to care for the baby, to sustain it's life, the baby will die.

If you intentionally kill the baby, you have taken an innocent human being's life. And that is murder.

Care for it? It cannot live, no matter how much you persuaded yourself that a history of having no baby ever living at 17 weeks gestation, or 18, 19, 20 or 21. It isn't a marginal thing worth the attempt, but willful self deception.

Again, obviously, we don't have the technology to keep 17 week old babies alive outside of the womb. I agree, trying to keep the baby alive would not be possible, and indeed fruitless. I meant care for the baby like you would care for a grandparent who is dying, make him or her comfortable, ease his or her suffering. But if they are going to die, you don't take their life just because they're going to die, or for any reason, for that matter. You allow them to die a peaceful death. That's not intentionally killing them, is it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION],

Abortion means to halt a pregnancy in a way that destroys the fœtus. Delivering a 17 well old fœtus IS an abortion, since it is guaranteed to end a pregnancy by destroying the fœtus.

There is no third way that can salvage the conscience, I'm afraid.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION],

Can you explain what "easing his or her suffering" might mean for a fœtus that hadn't got a functioning nervous system? How could it possibly suffer?

You also claim that intentionally carrying out an action that you know will cause a death isn't really murder if you can claim that death was just a necessary side effect of a different desire. Duo you think that would work as a defence in court? "Your honor, I didn't intend to kill the cashier in the bank, I simply wanted to stop him pressing the alarm. The death was incidental."

Hmm. Nope. An intentional act that knowingly and predictably results in the death of a person is murder no matter how you dress it up. A previable delivery is an abortion, or murder in your terms.

 

[Stripe]

Cite please.

Provided already.

I'm sure you have the figures for your assertion.

And we're sure you have nothing but your assertion that no abortions were legal or practiced.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app