‘Just Incubators’



The woman who is in her late 20s has been transferred from Dublin’s Beaumont Hospital to the Midland Regional Hospital in Mullingar.
It is understood that some family members have asked for her life support machine to be switched off. Doctors are seeking legal advice regarding the Constitutional position in relation to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

Legal advice sought over pregnant woman with brain trauma (RTE)

A pregnant  woman who is clinically brain dead is being kept on a life support machine against the wishes of her parents.

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive by hospital (Independent.ie)

Stephanie writes:

It’s official. We’re just incubators. Walking wombs and nothing more.

Sponsored Link

182 thoughts on “‘Just Incubators’

  1. Snow Queen Frilly Keane

    That’s me done for the night

    Cause I know I’ll say sum’ting that’ll cause allsorts


  2. delacaravanio

    Can we get some more facts before we go all shouty:

    How many weeks gone is the mother?

    Did she express any opinion prior to this?

      1. Newsjustin

        How so? Assuming she knew she was pregnant and happy about that, her wish would likely to have had a live baby as the outcome, no?

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            Not everyone who is pregnant is happy about it was my point. But her next of kin are the best placed to make this decision on her behalf not the drs

      1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly

        She’s in her second trimester but not yet near the time when the baby could survive outside the womb. It’s another 10 weeks if she’s 16 weeks gone and been then that’s very early.
        They haven’t mentioned her wishes, just her family’s so I guess not.
        If the baby were viable outside the womb, I presume they would have taken it out before she was declared clinically dead.

        1. Stephanenny

          The Irish Times says she suffered the head injury “a number of weeks ago” meaning it’s distinctly possible she had no idea she was pregnant. Also certainly meaning the pregnancy was before point of viability.

        2. delacaravanio

          Thank you.

          The poor dear should be allowed to pass away if the pregnancy has no hope produce the womb.

  3. roryna

    ok… ignoring the ridiculously emotive comments by some random person on twitter, the issues might just be more complex than a poorly researched, knee-jerk, 500 word article can encompass.

    ALSO – for once and for all… unless you are the patient or their legally appointed guardian your opinion, be you their parent/ partner/ some lad off the street, has no weight. NONE. the decision to continue/ discontinue therapies is based on medical needs as determined by the clinicians involved.

    1. Stephanenny

      Of course it’s more complex. Which is why no blanket law can govern it, or any other aspect of healthcare.

      While the case is complex it’s solution is still fairly fucking simple. Don’t do horrendously invasive things to a brain dead women for six months against her family’s wishes for the sake of a foetus that probably won’t survive.

    2. Stephanenny

      Oh and sorry for the “ridiculously emotive response”. For some bizarre reason I am absolutely furious that this has been allowed to happen.

      Must be on my period or something.

      Either that or it’s a travesty.

      Definitely one of those two.

    3. Jess

      “the decision to continue/ discontinue therapies is based on medical needs as determined by the clinicians involved.”

      Oh if that were the case. But unfortunately this is determined by voters 30 years ago and some elderly people in suits in a certain room in dublin. NOT doctors or patients

  4. Eamonn Clancy

    We’ve no idea how old the foetus/baby at this stage. While it does sound gruesome what’s equally scary is the idea of a foetus slowly passing away along with it’s poor mother or is there someone out there who’s willing kill/terminate it themselves? It’s not just a matter of flicking a switch here. It’s the most impossible of situations and both sides of the argument should, for dignity’s sake, refrain from using this heartbreaking tradgedy to score points.

    1. Stephanenny

      Saying this shouldn’t happen to women isn’t “point scoring”. It’s a fact. This should not happen to women.

      I’m getting really sick of people saying that prochoice people constantly refer to “extreme cases” and then getting told we’re “exploiting” the extreme cases when they happen again and again and again and AGAIN.

      It’s not exploitation. It’s fupping proof. There’d be no women to “exploit” if you would bloody well listen to us. Believe me I’d be a hell of a lot happier if there were no such cases but fupp me if they don’t seem to happen every bloody week.

      1. Newsjustin

        Why are you so adamant that a child not be born out of this tragic situation? Is it not a potential positive result of modern medicine in an otherwise bleak and tragic situation for the family?

        1. Stephanenny

          No, not if they don’t see it that way which they clearly don’t. It’s clearly making things a lot worse for them. Furthermore the medicine on this is very unclear and the odds of a live birth are not good when she suffered brain death so early in the pregnancy.

        2. Don Pidgeoni

          Just because modern medicine can do something doesn’t always make it the best decision for the patient or their family

          1. Newsjustin

            It’s clearly the best option for the unborn patient at this present time. The other option being destruction.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            The woman is the patient, not the foetus. The drs and next of kin should be free to make the best choice for her.

          3. Newsjustin

            That claim is entirely at odds with the law of this land. There are two patients. Whether you like that or not, it is the law.

          4. Don Pidgeoni

            I’m not going to agree with you because you are an a**hat and I don’t like you. People like you are why I am slightly terrified to ever be pregnant in this country.

          5. Stephanenny

            Law cannot alter medical fact. The law once says a person with an intellectual disability cannot provide consent to a range of issues but that’s simply not true.

        3. Jess

          The point is that this decision is not the decision for legislators or constitutional lawyers. Its the decision of Doctors, patients and next of kin based on the case in hand.

          1. Newsjustin

            The law, in this case (or at least the halt while the law is consulted) is currently keeping an unborn human alive. Without it, there is zero hope in this situation.

          2. Stephanenny

            Do you have a stating the obvious fetish when it comes to the law or what? Like so far do you think you’ve told anyone something they didn’t already know about the law?

          3. Nigel

            You really seem to be missing the point that it’s the FACT that this is the law that is the problem. Now go find someone complaining about their penalty points and tell them what the law is. It’ll be sure to clarify things for them enormously.

          4. Newsjustin

            Yes. See my conversation with Don above. Don thought that there was only one patient involved. I reminded Don that the law says otherwise. It’s important to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were.

          5. Nigel

            It is actually also very important to see things as you wish them to be, or else nothing ever gets fixed or changed.

          6. Don Pidgeoni

            They’re is only one patient involved. The foetus is not the patient. I doubt they have medical notes on the foetus. I doubt the foetus has been admitted. The law that you so love can be completely wrong.

          7. Newsjustin

            Don, of course they have medical notes on the foetus. Have you ever been inside a maternity hospital or known a pregnant woman? Lot’s of notes…as appropriate…on both mother and baby. I can confirm that doctors are well aware that they certainly are treating two patients. Otherwise, there would be no issue here.

          8. Don Pidgeoni

            Yes, I have worked in one. Those notes will be part of the mother’s set of notes at this stage, as they would be for any woman at 16 weeks. So the foetus doesn’t have it’s own notes, the foetus is not admitted. The foetus is not the patient.

          9. Newsjustin

            Right Don. Since the baby’s notes are in the mother’s folder, that means the doctors don’t think its a patient and the constitutional protection it enjoys is removed. Clutching at straws there Don. As I said, if the baby were not a patient, this would not be an issue, no legal advice would be needed and, most likely, the woman would now be deceased.

          10. Don Pidgeoni

            Look news, you are the one claiming the foetus is a patient. I am refuting that. Not sure how you find this difficult to understand.

          11. Newsjustin

            @Don. The doctors will explain that they are currently treating 2 patients.

            @Grimes. Technically the woman is not deceased.

          12. Don Pidgeoni

            Will they? I’d say the drs have a better understanding of what is morally right for a patient but are hamstrung by this stupid law

          13. Grimes

            Technically (lets see how many times we can use that word), she is brain dead and only being kept alive by machines. Without them, she is ‘technically’ deceased.

  5. Kieran NYC

    Whatever the true facts of this case, what do you wanna bet that the legal to-ing, fro-ing and fudging will last until the fetus happens to be viable outside the womb?

  6. Stephen Byrne

    One would think that being an incubator of human life is somehow shameful or disgusting. I think it’s amazing. Men can’t do it. I would jump at the chance to be an “incubator”.

    1. Stephanenny

      Yeah, it’s awesome. The force feeding, the NG tubes, the intubation, the catheter, the caesarean wound, the incontinence, the depression and trauma.

      It truly is wondrous and beautiful to behold. Come on over here and we’ll give you a taste of what it feels like.

      1. Stephanenny

        Are you really not interested? Come on Stephen! We could haul you before the courts 40 weeks into a pregnancy to have one stranger decide that another stranger can cut your abdomen open with a scalpel! Yay! Look at all the amazing civil rights violations! So pretty!

          1. Stephanenny

            I’m under no obligation to be polite to people who tell me how to express myself when I’m at very real risk of being treated like a piece of meat by the state. Why should I ease up? Why do you think it’s ok for you to tell me to ease up? What would the “acceptable” response to your “ease up” comment have been and who decides what is acceptable and why should I pay attention to them anyway?

            You made a flippant comment and it was deserving of a flippant response.

          2. Mikeyfex

            Because I’m generally on your side (which maybe I should have said) but you’re coming across poorly and it’s harder to associate with. You even slept on that little convo and came back for more this morning. Stephen’s comment in isolation is quite a nice one.

            Please, don’t feel the need to respond any more. Genuinely.

          3. Stephanenny

            It’s not nice. It’s not nice at all. I’m aware I slept on the comment and “cane back for more”. That’s because I received several similar comments via twitter overnight and cannot believe the level of ignorance in it. I think that ignorance should be highlighted and I want to hear his reply.

            Literally being told that being treated like a vessel is beautiful. That I should appreciate it, that I should be thankful. That all the women who suffer because of this law are actually lucky and that we are *envied*. Do you have any clue what it feels like to be told that? That I should appreciate this because other people can’t experience it?

            I’m not going to tone down my anger because it makes people uncomfortable. Being polite and tactful has given us 31 years of cases like this and I’m sick of it.

          4. Caroline

            I think it takes great generosity of spirit to view Stephen’s comment as nice.

            It would be like wading into a debate about a father’s custody battle saying “Not sure what the guy’s problem is here, I’d only love a break from dealing with snotty noses and homework!! I’d take every other weekend in a heartbeat!”

            Glib, provocative and deliberately so. Y’know. C*nty.

        1. Mikeyfex

          Maybe he meant it to be provocative and I misread that. Good analogy. There are better ways of engaging in debate though which is why I had an issue with the responses – the point had been made.

          I’m a sucker for charm Caroline as you know. Less G. Beck, more G. Peck, like.

          1. ESV

            “Ease Up” wasn’t the “nicest” comment I’ve ever seen, by the way. Or the most useful. Possible translations include: CALM DOWN/Let’s all just be quiet and not get involved/Don’t shout, woman/oh stop making such a fuss, sure it’s grand.

            To paraphrase something Stephanenny said, we have had 31 years of too many people reacting in ways similar to those above – of too many people “easing up”.

    2. Lilly

      Why is it so important to you to replicate your DNA? Is the potential for new life any more amazing than the reality of existing lives full of need for everything you might have to give – and then some.

      1. rotide

        Just a quick note.

        Literally the only reason humans are on this earth is to replicate their DNA. It is programmed into us and it informs nearly everything we do. You may as well ask him why it’s so important to him that he breathe.

          1. rotide

            Ah there’s caroline now with all the answers as usual

            Wait, no. None of the answers as usual but with plenty of ad homonium attacks!

        1. dan

          Humans aren’t on Earth for any reason, you’ve confused function with purpose.
          Your answer is also facetious, I hope, in so far as the biological impulse is mis-called “the reproductive drive”, when it’s actually a drive towards sex, not reproduction.
          Your comparison of reproducing to breathing is obviously inane, so I’ll assume you understand that you’re wrong without explanation.

    3. Jane

      Yeah, pregnancy’s great unless you’re the one who has to do it. I mean, I think it’d be brillinat if men were the ones who got pregnant too – why are we always relying on stupid women – everyone knows that we aren’t really able for the responsbility which is why, of course, we’re not really sufficiently able to understand and assess the circumstances of our own lives well enough to decide for ourselves whether we should be able to have abortions.

      If only nature had been sensible.

      1. JimmytheHead

        If i was a woman (which im like 90% sure im not) honestly dont think i could go through with pregnancy, unless i was getting C-sectioned in a coma. Adoption all the way baby

      2. Stephen Byrne

        I’ve been through 3 pregnancies with my partner and wife and another one on the way. Incubate me up, I’ll do it no problem.
        I am not denying the stress on the body and mind that pregnancy brings, but at the end of it all there’s a beautiful child. Who wouldn’t want to incubate that?

        1. Jane

          You haven’t been through three pregnancies, your partner and wife have. It’s pretty arrogant of you to imagine that you have any idea what pregnancy is like having been a bystander through the process. I am currently pregnant and I can tell you, you really have no idea at all what you’re saying, but it’s pretty insulting.

        2. Spaghetti Hoop

          Not always the case. Things can go wrong. Also, one person’s “beautiful child” may be another person’s source of anxiety, stress, resentment. From birth to 18 there is a lot of work, commitment and sacrifice required. Some can’t, and some don’t want to take that on. That’s the reality.

  7. Diddley Aye

    This could be a watershed. Just like the Savita case forced prolifers to confront their beliefs, this case
    may force the extreme pro choice movement to examine their motivations. The mother is brain dead. She is no longer a sentient being whether we like it or not. She does not even meet Claire Daly’s fatuous standard of a bunch of cells. All she has is the dignity of being who she was and now of being a mother. If you insist that the life support be turned off now, then you are wilfully ending the existence of a real, actual growing human being who may one day be able to express their own opinon on whether their life is worthwhile.

    1. Newsjustin

      Certainly. Some people need to consider why they deem it so vital that technology, that may allow a child to be born, be withheld from them.

      1. Stephanenny

        Hang on, I remember this, something to do with informed consent and the state not running roughshod over it… Wait just a minute, I’ll get there eventually….

    2. Jess

      We can perfectly insist that this decision should be made by the doctors and the next of kin in accordance with the woman’s wishes. Not by old men in 18th century wigs, based on what some half cut eejits in the Dail.

  8. Shivynbear

    Eh, just a side note here but, who’s going to bring up the kid ?
    How’s that going to work if the woman’s parents are in their 70’s ?
    We don’t know the circumstances of the woman, her parents or the circumstances of the pregnancy before we get all mouthy about what is and what should be.
    Damn glad I don’t have to make a decision like that.

    1. Spaghetti Hoop

      What kid?
      It’s a 16-week foetus.
      Mother’s life comes first here.
      Poor family. Not only do they have to say goodbye to the woman, they now have their sad case bandied around the media and the moralistic corners of Irish society.

  9. Soundings

    How long has the unfortunate woman been brain dead (“some weeks ago”, what does that mean)? What is the position of the father? Is it medically possible to grow a foetus into a baby in a brain dead woman’s womb? This sounds like the “perfect storm” of moral and medical dilemmas.

    If the foetus can be grown into a viable baby, and if the father wants that, then I support the hospital in their present course, that’s where I come out on this. God rest the soul of the brain dead woman, and I hope her family find peace.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        The Irish Times today have made it look like Leo is calling for a referendum and saying Enda is against it in today’s paper.
        Completely ignoring what Leo actually said in the Dail (as transcribed here yesterday).

  10. stealingthemichael

    so this baby gets born, then what. Who wants to be the person who explains to this litlle boy/girl that their mother died before they were born, their grandparents didn’t want them and their fathers opinion wasn’t even considered?

      1. The Bird in the Box

        people do give a shit about her parents’ eish, that’s why there’s a massive debate about this.

        1. The Bird in the Box

          Fat fingers hit send before I finished typing…

          I don’t feel comfortable giving too much of my own opinion on this case, as I don’t know the full circumstances.

          For example, did the woman know she was pregnant, and was she planning on having the baby? If this was her intention, then there is an argument to be made that she would have wanted her child to be born, regardless of what happened to her, particularly when the other parent is around to provide a loving and stable upbringing.

          The father of the child just seems to be notably absent in the discussion of this case.

          As I said already, I don’t know the full circumstances, so I’m not going to condemn anyone. It’s a horrible, heartbreaking situation for the family, to lose a loved one and to also face a moral debate.

    1. rotide

      50 odd comments in and someone finally mentions this.

      Well, it was never going to be stephanny was it.

        1. Kin Kong Ovo

          Just from these comments alone Steph, you are a vile person. Vulgar, rude, obnoxious. Just a very unpleasant woman.
          I thank my lucky stars I know very few people of your caliber, male and female alike.

          I did know one once, and she was swiftly removed from my circle after revealing her true colours as a rude, obnoxious twit. I imagine the same has happened on more than one occasion to you.

          1. Stephanenny

            I’m so terribly sad that I’m not your friend. Nothing like a justifiably angry woman to make people uncomfortable. Sorry I’ll keep my opinions to myself like a good little lady from now on.

            ps Astounding how you can know someone from “comments alone” on one topic on one day as well as you know someone from your “circle”. Really remarkable. You must be an excellent judge of character.

          2. Kin Kong Ovo

            @ Steph

            You might actually be a lovely person, but you’ve presented yourself as aggressive and obnoxious here. By “From these comments alone” , my intention was to say that if you were to be judged on these comments alone, in this context, that would be my opinion of you.

            Anger and passion for something you believe in can be expressed without resorting to passive aggression and without being obnoxious.

          3. Stephanenny

            I’ve presented myself as angry Kin, anything else is your perception, not my presentation. You also say “if” I were to be judged by these comments alone, when that is clearly what you’re doing. Fortunately I have little to no respect for anyone who would judge a person by these comments alone.

            And with regard to “twitter friends” and my “rotund boyfriend” – my twitter account is linked to my username here. Check the timeline, no reference to broadsheet since the tweet they posted on this article. Also I’m pretty sure my boyfriend (who I suspect is a much better person than you whatever his size) is working and has no idea I’m commenting here, besides he’s perfectly aware that I can defend myself extremely well.

          4. missred

            She is not the vile person here. Do you know what it’s like to be silenced and shouted down when matters at hand directly affect you, whether it’s a blatant shut-the-f***-up or the wincing, twee “ease up”, “calm down dear”, “say this nicely or I won’t listen to you” bullsh*t? I am not going to be silenced or tone-policed on this matter and neither is Steph. Cases like these can potentially impact on our health and our futures in this country as women. I am not going to be called names such as the above for sticking up for myself or other women. If you think you are allowed do such a thing, you can whistle for it

          5. Grimes

            Its really funny how you can judge Steph without meeting her in person. She is justifiably angry about this and is in fact saying exactly what I’m thinking.

            Don’t worry Steph, I’ll be your friend, we can be “vile” together.

          6. Nigel

            Yeah, you tell her how awful she is. That’ll teach her to have strong feelings and opinions about things and to express them forcefully. God knows we get little enough empty snark and random abuse around here that we can afford to take people who engage intelligently as well as passionately with the subject at hand to task for being abrasive.

          7. Lilly

            @ Kin Kong – Why the personal attack on Steph because she has the temerity to robustly express her opinion?

          1. Stewart Curry

            Hey Kin, “Anger and passion for something you believe in can be expressed without resorting to passive aggression and without being obnoxious.”

  11. Dubloony

    There’s real people facing an extraordinarily hard time right now.
    Even if we did know the medical and social circumstances of people involved, its none of our business.

    But our stupid bloody laws get in the way again of making medical decisions in a desperate situation.

    1. Stephanenny

      Absolutely agree. If they wanted to keep her on life support I’d support them. I’d still think it was a bloody awful situation but I believe in the right to informed consent and without a living will, which I seriously doubt she has, the consent has to come from her next of kin.

      1. Newsjustin

        Except if what the family want to do is against the law. They can’t do that. That’s the whole point.

        1. andyourpointiswhatexactly

          Well, it depends on how the law will be interpreted.
          You seem so certain of what that outcome will be.

          1. Newsjustin

            I’m only certain that if something is against the law, then it is against the law. Currently, the law is being consulted to see where everyone stands in this difficult situation.

          2. Newsjustin

            You’d be amazed how often people can’t or won’t see the obvious Steph. Like it would seem obvious that an unborn human would be worthy of all the benefits of modern medicine. But some people don’t see it that way.

  12. Mikeyfex

    Poor family. They’ve no idea a whole raft of people on the internet know what they’re thinking and what’s best.

    1. Stephanenny

      For the record I don’t think I know what the best decision is but (going by the available info) I do think that her parents are best placed to make that decision.

  13. Laine

    Such a horrible case on so many levels. My view is that it/was up to the woman and man to take responsibility for any babies they make. But this woman is not alive any more and never will be so she cannot raise this baby. Assuming the man is not around then who do the doctors hand this baby to when it’s cut out of the dead woman?

    The woman’s parents are her next of kin – so I suppose they are handed it to raise for the rest of their lives. That’s not really fair on them or the kid. The woman also left behind two children so the grandparents already have their hands full. They have specially asked for the life support to be turned off. But their wishes mean nothing.

    What kind of pregnancy is that for a baby to develop in – a still body – no movement/walking/talking/eating/being stroked by it’s mother. It’s very sad.


  14. ABM

    If you believe:

    1) the mother has 0.000% chance of surviving
    2) the child has 0.000% of surviving
    3) the father has 0 rights

    , then I can understand how, using logic alone, you would wash your hands with a decision to end both lives.

    If I was in a coma, I’d wish to be kept alive for the 1% chance that I might live to see my family again.

    If you disregard the right to life (at the very early stages and the very late stages of life), then the result is “death panels” – i.e. committees that decide who “should” and “should not” live based on a range of input parameters (person’s wishes, person’s mental capacity, economic cost, presence of health insurance, ethics/morals of the individual and/or hospital they were admitted to, etc.)

    Catholic teaching on medical quagmires, while not perfect, are reasonably elegant – preserve and protect life to the best of your ability, in the most humane way possible, that gives life the best chance of success. Counsel, advice and moral guidance is always available to medical professionals – indeed, the church regularly calls on the expertise of medical professionals and scientists to inform their teachings. If the Irish church can’t help on an individual case, they can call on the Vatican network.

    1. Stephanenny

      Tell us, in the countries that have both euthanasia and abortion, what form do these “death panels” take? Could you send us a picture please? Do they wear robes? Carry scythes?

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        It’s about property in that my womb is my property. And why should doctors not be allowed to provide abortions given that the majority that occur require a pill and a period of medical observation?

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          I wouldn’t like to speak for her but from what I’ve seen from her posts, I imagine she thinks somewhere along the same lines. Like most people who believe they have the right to decide what happens to their own body.

        2. Grimes

          FFS what is with the woman hating on here? Of course its about property, its about women owning their own bodies and being allowed to do what ever they decide with them, the same way men are. We apparently aren’t allowed that luxury in this country.

        3. Grimes

          Your initial comment “Will (some) women just admit that this whole debate is about property rights – that is, that the foetus/child (you can’t be half pregnant) is their property.” is somewhat accusatory, as if its something we are trying to gloss over when in fact ownership is at the centre of this.

        4. Don Pidgeoni

          Ben, you come on here goading a response, get an honest reply then throw all your toys out of the pram and I am the immature one? Go away while the adults talk, there’s a good boy.

        5. Don Pidgeoni

          No Ben, I answered your question. You had no argument. Then you got petty, emotional and immature because i answered you. What are you going to next, pull my hair or stamp your feet?

        6. Don Pidgeoni

          Read it again and then cop on to your sorry self. Or do you want to start with the hackneyed pigeon jokes now?

      2. Nigel

        ‘I was reluctant to wade into these dangerous waters, however, I decided to jump in head first.’

        Linking property rights to human beings was certainly a good way of muddying the dangerous waters.

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          Immature trolling seems to be about your level alright since engaging in any form of reasonable debate is beyond you.

        2. Don Pidgeoni

          Lol so if I answer your question I’m immature and petty and then if I try to question your childish response I’m a last-word merchant?? Oh Ben, who hurt you on the internet?

      3. dan

        You seem very confused.
        Presumably, since you believe in abortion rights within certain time constraints, you don’t believe that the feotus should be considered a person until a certain developmental point is reached. That would make it silly to want “abortionist” to be a separate vocation to doctoring, abortion is a medical procedure performed on pregnant women, not “unborn children”.
        Also, there’s absolutely no reason to disbarred a person who performs abortions from performing other operations so long as they are qualified. Although it might make it harder to find anyone who does perform them, and would definitely make it easy to target those who do, as well as punishing them for it by restricting their ability to work.
        Finally, pretty much everyone, male or female, who talks about this specifically states that it’s completely about autonomy, to relegate the right to personal autonomy to mere property rights is bizarre, you don’t own your body, you are your body. Only the anti-choice side makes this about property rights, those who proclaim that a pregnant woman belongs to their god and must obey the god, and the variety of people who claim to speak for the god.
        Abortion rights shouldn’t even need to be debated, they should be automatic up until the medically defined time constraints.

      4. dan

        That wasn’t a deconstruction of an argument, that was just a statement of some of your personal biases, which is also what your OP was.
        Just because you don’t know you’re confused doesn’t mean you aren’t.
        It’s pretty obvious you are, because your position doesn’t make sense.

    2. Don Pidgeoni

      Doctors anyway make decisions regarding treatment at end if life, your so called death panels are a medical reality.

    3. Shivynbear

      You, are a biased idiot with no real experience of pregnancy beyond your own rhetoric.
      But that’s free speech for you.

      1. ABM

        There’s no “free speech” here.

        Can anyone here explain how this particular woman can “choose”? In the absence of “choice”, who is best placed to decide what’s in her interests? “The state”?

  15. stealingthemichael

    Now that everyone has had a chance to shout at each other, is anyone any closer to figuring out who has more rights, the person who is dead or the person who hasn’t been born yet?

    1. Niallo

      Setting aside the legal, religious and moral questions, we need to be compassionate, thats what a judge should do who has no precedent to go on. Compassion not only for the foetus, but for the woman, her family, her kids..
      So, If theres a chance the “dead” person has the slimest chance of being revived, then they take the priority no matter what the cost. <Thats a full stop righy there btw.
      …The principle being half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
      A miscarriage can happen at any point during a pregnancy.
      a living breathing woman is a fully developed entity, with a life, a pps number, hopes, dreams, fears, a definite future….
      If the "dead" woman is truly dead and, then, if the foetus is viable and can be brought to term, without issue, and provided her family/guardians are in agreement, and there is someone or some organisation available to care for the resultant child, then that throws open the option (option) of attempting to bring the child to term.
      Anything short of that would be extreme cruelty to the childs mother, grandparents and most importantly the potential child itself.
      Thats the way i see it, and im usually not wrong.
      Now, pardon me for being human, but where did i put that scotch…

      1. ABM

        Is it just me or are women having “miscarriages” every other day? My impression is that they are deciding they’ll go off to England to have their abortion while pretending their bad decision-making is a consequence of their pathology – pregnancy. “I had a miscarriage”. It’s becoming farcical at this stage.

Comments are closed.