Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

_Myg

Jernal, I am not going to make much of an argument out of this topic at the moment, but what you said is astounding. How is physically dismembering/mutilating and/or dissecting a foetus, or killing it with chemicals any less painful? I thought the main reason you people justified that these foeti are not worthy to be classified as humans because of the belief that they lack some sensory/perceptive abilities as others; Isn't that why we have countries with term limits, right?

I think its obvious the only one's lacking in perception are those who think that somehow, a whimsical emotional construct, attaching itself to a much greater linguistic reference like "choice" somehow over-rides the right to existence of someone else.

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

It's all about the suffering. Suffering glorifies god, or some sh1t.

MrP

God makes us suffer to remind us that we need God because we suffer .... lol

Zombrex

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I am not going to make much of an argument out of this topic at the moment, but what you said is astounding. How is physically dismembering/mutilating and/or dissecting a foetus, or killing it with chemicals any less painful?

Jesus tap dancing Christ.

They kill the foetus with an injection before doing any of that. The injection is painless.

Your question is like asking how is it any less painful to peacefully put my dog down with an injection that makes her fall asleep than it is to tie her to the back of my car and drag her around a field until she is dead. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I am not going to make much of an argument out of this topic at the moment, but what you said is astounding. How is physically dismembering/mutilating and/or dissecting a foetus, or killing it with chemicals any less painful? I thought the main reason you people justified that these foeti are not worthy to be classified as humans because of the belief that they lack some sensory/perceptive abilities as others; Isn't that why we have countries with term limits, right?

I think its obvious the only one's lacking in perception are those who think that somehow, a whimsical emotional construct, attaching itself to a much greater linguistic reference like "choice" somehow over-rides the right to existence of someone else.

Do you believe people have the right to self-defense?

If you had a choice of shooting some one who was about to shoot you - would you be glad to die as their 'right to life' over rides yours. If not - why not?

I do find it interesting that those who insist on the right to life of the unborn even at the expense of the life of the mother - as is the case in El Salvador- are not also campaigning to have the 'right' to self-defense is no offense repealed. Why is that? Is the potential killer's life not precious?

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you believe people have the right to self-defense?

If you had a choice of shooting some one who was about to shoot you - would you be glad to die as their 'right to life' over rides yours. If not - why not?

I do find it interesting that those who insist on the right to life of the unborn even at the expense of the life of the mother - as is the case in El Salvador- are not also campaigning to have the 'right' to self-defense is no offense repealed. Why is that? Is the potential killer's life not precious?

Well she is a woman, and as we all know women have less rights than everyone else. Particularly women who have sex. They are the worst.

Turtwig

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I am not going to make much of an argument out of this topic at the moment, but what you said is astounding. How is physically dismembering/mutilating and/or dissecting a foetus, or killing it with chemicals any less painful? I thought the main reason you people justified that these foeti are not worthy to be classified as humans because of the belief that they lack some sensory/perceptive abilities as others; Isn't that why we have countries with term limits, right?

I think its obvious the only one's lacking in perception are those who think that somehow, a whimsical emotional construct, attaching itself to a much greater linguistic reference like "choice" somehow over-rides the right to existence of someone else.

No dismemberment or mutilation occurs during a legal abortion. An injection is usually apply 24-48 hrs in advance of the procedure to stop the foetal heartbeat. There is a possibility that it does experience some pain (depending on how much it has developed of course), but in theory, it should be minimal.
Yes, there is the ethical quandary of how this is effectively removing the foetus' chances of survival outside the womb but the issue here is the pragmatism of those chances. It's like abandoning several million newborn infants in the jungle. Maybe a few miracles ones will survive but the majority will suffer horrible deaths. Now consider that in the case of this foetus it's not even going to be fully developed. It's condition is fatal. There's maybe the slightest planck length of a chance that it may survive but by all accounts it's going to die. So, the choice is between letting it suffer gravely or letting it go as peacefully as possible.

Finally pro-choice folks come in variety of spectra if you think they all don't classify foetuses as human beings then you haven't really bothered with the abortion debate at all. There is no simple way of describing this debate, it's ridiculouslycomplex, but I think just using the "rights" part of the argument should serve to make the point.
And Peregrinus made it beautifully so I'll just let his words do the talking.

The fact is that both sides in the pro-life/pro-choice debate actually have a lot of common ground; they both argue their position out of a shared understanding that human rights make a strong moral claim on us, and that we can measure laws against the claims of human rights, and criticise them if they fail to uphold or respect human rights. They just disagree about how the conflict between the rights of the born and the right of the unborn should be negotiated or resolved.

It seems to me that the pro-choice position arises from looking at the subject whose rights are in issue; they consider that a born subject has a stronger claim to rights than an unborn subject. Whereas the pro-life positions assumes that all subjects have the same claim to rights, but they see infringement of the right to life (resulting in the death or destruction of the subject) as a weightier matter than infringement of the right to bodily integrity (which can have very profound consequences, but rarely results in death or destruction).

kylith

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I am not going to make much of an argument out of this topic at the moment, but what you said is astounding. How is physically dismembering/mutilating and/or dissecting a foetus, or killing it with chemicals any less painful? I thought the main reason you people justified that these foeti are not worthy to be classified as humans because of the belief that they lack some sensory/perceptive abilities as others; Isn't that why we have countries with term limits, right?

I think its obvious the only one's lacking in perception are those who think that somehow, a whimsical emotional construct, attaching itself to a much greater linguistic reference like "choice" somehow over-rides the right to existence of someone else.

In this case the foetus in anencephelactic. It doesn't have a brain. It's rather difficult to feel pain without something with which to register it.

joseph brand

MrPudding wrote: »

It's all about the suffering. Suffering glorifies god, or some sh1t. Mother Teresa

MrP

FTFY.

_Myg

Jernal, based on the quote you have chosen; I would reverse the ignorance of the situation claim full back onto you, but since you only quote it I can only partially blame you.

What about the boldily integrity of the baby in the womb?

Zombrex

_Myg wrote: »

What about the boldily integrity of the baby in the womb?

It is exactly the same as the mothers.

Though I suspect given you asked that question you don't understand what bodily integrity is. The woman is not inside the foetus, nor is the woman depending on the foetus.

The closest you could get to where the foetus' bodily integrity is relevant would be to say that the mother has no right to force the foetus to remain in the woman's body after it is due, potentially damaging the foetus, something i would imagine you agree with.

oldrnwisr

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I am not going to make much of an argument out of this topic at the moment, but what you said is astounding. How is physically dismembering/mutilating and/or dissecting a foetus, or killing it with chemicals any less painful?

In addition to the sweeping generalisation highlighted by Jernal, it should be noted that your argument isn't supported by facts either.

Firstly, Jernal was referring to a specific case in El Salvador where a 22-year old woman was prevented from having an abortion even though the pregnancy was not viable due to anencephaly (which kylith explained to you). In such a case, the consequence of not providing an abortion is that you are going to put the health and possibly life of a young woman in grave jeopardy so that she can deliver a child who will die very shortly afterwards. That is not the decision of a humane, civilised or enlightened people.

Secondly, with regard to abortion in general and your sweeping generalisation abortion is the less painful outcome. Firstly, both Jernal and Zombrex explained that an injection is delivered prior to the actual surgical procedure so that there will not be any pain. However, even that is pretty irrelevant. The fact is that we have a limited amount of evidence regarding foetal pain, but the evidence that we do have suggests that it is highly unlikely that a foetus can feel pain prior to the third trimester or otherwise 25 weeks.

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Now, admittedly, the UK may not be representative of abortions worldwide but if we look at the 2010 UK figures as an example we see that just 147 abortions or 0.1% of the total are performed at 24 weeks and above.

NHS Abortion Statistics

When we examine these 147 abortions further we see that all of them were performed under statutory ground E which states:

"there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped (section 1(1)(d))"

UK Abortion Statistics 2010

(See Table 9)

So, we can see from the actual data that there is only a tiny percentage of all abortions which is conducted at a point where the foetus could possibly feel pain and even then it is usually done for serious medical reasons and even then the procedure is pain-free thanks to a prior injection. So you are wrong both with specific reference to the case that Jernal was commenting on and in general. And that's before we even get to your generalisation about people who are pro-choice. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here. This is a hugely complex issue with many multifaceted factors to be considered and it isn't helped by arguments such as yours.

MrPudding

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you believe people have the right to self-defense?

If you had a choice of shooting some one who was about to shoot you - would you be glad to die as their 'right to life' over rides yours. If not - why not?

I do find it interesting that those who insist on the right to life of the unborn even at the expense of the life of the mother - as is the case in El Salvador- are not also campaigning to have the 'right' to self-defense is no offense repealed. Why is that? Is the potential killer's life not precious?

I have heard the response to this one. The little baaaaybeeee is innocent whereas the person trying to kill you is clearly not. By attempting to harm you he or she has abdicated all rights to life.

MrP

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

It is exactly the same as the mothers.

Though I suspect given you asked that question you don't understand what bodily integrity is. The woman is not inside the foetus, nor is the woman depending on the foetus.

The closest you could get to where the foetus' bodily integrity is relevant would be to say that the mother has no right to force the foetus to remain in the woman's body after it is due, potentially damaging the foetus, something i would imagine you agree with.

Unfortunately, pro-lifers are bad at bringing out the key point here, because ideologically they have to say "identical". The point is, of course, that the mother and foetus are physically different. Hence, even if we assert they've an equal right, the physical difference necessarily means that this equality has to be expressed in different ways.

What the pro-lifers could do, perhaps, is point to the significance of the time limitation generally applied in jurisdictions that allow abortion. What's the significance of the time limit? It's that, once the foetus has a prospect of viability, most (all?) States agree that mothers should be compelled to carry the foetus to full term, so that you don't end up with a person being born with totally avoidable disabilities.

What pro-lifers could do is work back from that period where it is already conceded that the woman hasn't a right of bodily integrity. Once you've established that the right to bodily integrity isn't absolute, it becomes a matter of degree.

I can't understand why then don't use this obvious approach, and can only assume it's because it doesn't fit in with the perfect ideology of equality from the point of conception, as if the physically different realities can be ignored.

_Myg

old, unfortunatly, there is no magical ecosystem where people get to chose a gray area between right and wrong here, because the absolute/binary nature of the act. To end someone's life or not. If you want to legislate to end someone's life, you are trying to legalize murder and thus wish to partake in murder. If you are not; you are not. There have never been any gray areas in this regard. Never. The choice has always been yours.

I find it disgusting as well that you somehow think that an "enlightened" society would put the needs of the older and stronger above the needs of the younger and weaker, who are the future and continuity of that very society people claim to protect. How do you think Ireland has been so socially and economically destroyed and people allowed to think en mass; delusional thoughts like "The housing market creates value", or "Divorce is good", or "Sell ourselves to foreign powers and agendas through Brussels/etc and incompetent, weak leaders". These are all examples of social behaviour from ones who have obviously let go of everything and given up hope, for nothing; and are on the path to being no good for the lives of themselves or others.

No productivity to humanity as a whole comes from this line of behaviour, only death and decay.

Turtwig

_Myg wrote: »

old, unfortunatly, there is no magical ecosystem where people get to chose a gray area between right and wrong here, because the absolute/binary nature of the act. To end someone's life or not. If you want to legislate to end someone's life, you are trying to legalize murder and thus wish to partake in murder. If you are not; you are not. There have never been any gray areas in this regard. Never. The choice has always been yours.

I find it disgusting as well that you somehow think that an "enlightened" society would put the needs of the older and stronger above the needs of the younger and weaker, who are the future and continuity of that very society people claim to protect. How do you think Ireland has been so socially and economically destroyed and people allowed to think en mass; delusional thoughts like "The housing market creates value", or "Divorce is good", or "Sell ourselves to foreign powers and agendas through Brussels/etc and incompetent, weak leaders". These are all examples of social behaviour from ones who have obviously let go of everything and given up hope, for nothing; and are on the path to being no good for the lives of themselves or others.

No productivity to humanity as a whole comes from this line of behaviour, only death and decay.

With respect, I don't think you're actually replying to anything Oldrnwisr said here. Regarding divorce, divorce from an abusive relationship is good. Are all divorces good? Probably not. However, taking an absolute position e.g all divorces are bad. on any moral issue without understanding the individuals' own circumstances is not very wise in my view.

Sarky

I love mass generalisations! All drugs are harmful, abortion is never necessary to save anyone's life, and all the British were despicable c*nts until about the 1950's.

MrPudding

_Myg wrote: »

I find it disgusting as well that you somehow think that an "enlightened" society would put the needs of the older and stronger above the needs of the younger and weaker, who are the future and continuity of that very society people claim to protect.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread? Any?

How does one satisfy the need to a foetus with large portion of its brain, or indeed its whole brain missing? How does one satisfy the need of a foetus so severely abnormal that should it even survive to birth and be born it life will be short and agonising?

Anyone that thinks the world is black and white and there is no grey is very close to delusional. So let me ask you a question; a woman is pregnant, first trimester, due to family history her doctor runs some tests on the foetus and discovers it is suffering from a rare genetic disorder that means a live birth is highly unlikely, but in the event it does happen, the born child will be is severe pain and distress for the short period of time it will be alive. Do you think the woman should have to continue the pregnancy for as long as it lasts, even if that means there is a birth where the child suffered extreme pain, albeit for a very short time?

MrP

PopePalpatine

MrPudding wrote: »

Anyone that thinks the world is black and white and there is no grey is very close to delusional.

And possibly a Sith, if you ask Obi-Wan.

aloyisious

Ireland is not the only country where soem of it's "national bodies" oppose abortion at all costs. The UK Independent (Friday 31 May - page 26) reported this: El Salvador laws prohibit all abortions, even when a woman's life is at risk. A woman, aged 22, took a case to the country's Supreme Court looking for permission to have an abortion. The Court turned down her request. The woman is a kidney patient suffering from kidney failure and Lupus, and untrasound scans of the foetus showed it was developing with anencephaly, meaning it has only a brain-stem and would die a few days after birth. The country,s Health backed her case but the AG for Human Rights opposed it saying that "what should prevail.... are human rights - in this case, the right to life" end quote.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrPudding wrote: »

Do you think the woman should have to continue the pregnancy for as long as it lasts, even if that means there is a birth where the child suffered extreme pain, albeit for a very short time?

Can I say, I see this kind of argument as convincing in those circumstances - precisely because nothing is gained by prolonging the pregnancy.

However, does use of this justification imply that, where medical opinion suggest that a pregnancy will result in a reasonably healthy child, there's no argument for abortion? I mean, the life prospects of the foetus are either relevant, or they are not.

(Apologies, I find I can't help making the points that I feel the pro-lifers should be making, but don't. I think everyone benefits from all aspects being explored.)

Sierra 117

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And possibly a Sith, if you ask Obi-Wan.

I wouldn't trust Obi-Wan. He said that only Siths deal in absolutes, but that itself is an absolute. So obviously Obi-Wan was a Sith.

MrPudding

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Can I say, I see this kind of argument as convincing in those circumstances - precisely because nothing is gained by prolonging the pregnancy.

However, does use of this justification imply that, where medical opinion suggest that a pregnancy will result in a reasonably healthy child, there's no argument for abortion? I mean, the life prospects of the foetus are either relevant, or they are not.

(Apologies, I find I can't help making the points that I feel the pro-lifers should be making, but don't. I think everyone benefits from all aspects being explored.)

I asked that particular question because _Myg had stated that everything was back and white, abortion is murder, only thinking of the woman etc... I think it is a reasonable reason for an abortion, but just because it might be does not automatically mean that the negative of it is a reason to refuse.

MrP

_Myg

Jernal, I don't think you have actually read anything I have said; do you only see things through the secular perspective?

Marriage is at base a spiritual order tied to the very nature of our existence as male and female, and has always been so.

To add the possibility of splitting that order, is against the nature of us and thus it is *always* bad. But then, so is being forced into a marriage or being married when you are not even aware of what is going on (see "Annulment" in the church).

Statistics, reports and "facts" calculated and written down on paper can be dangerous if taken literally, just as anything can. A good analyst will remind you that "you have to see the whole picture first", but even then; the time it would take to properly create and present such a thing would last longer then the issue exists on the table, which makes them pointless; and in the end destructive to those who engage with them. They are only really useful after the fact to drive home the result or to make you wonder how it turned out that way to expand your self critiquing a bit. But I do appreciate the work he put into his post and that does make me sad.

Morality is always black and white, but the level of culpability in the act is questionable, but as you know, the effects of the act are never questionable.

Sarky, drugs are always harmful; but some are more harmful to your afflictions then they are to you. Besides the obvious physical enhancers and their temporary "benefiets", some drugs give you quick ways of exploring your mind that normally would take a lifetime of work to achieve; which is tantamount to taking a performance enhancing drug for the mind, but as well, is unnatural and damaging to the order around you. Abortion is never necessary; as is killing someone who is in a weaker position then you. And about the brits; they got their "comeuppance" from the nations they previously treated like dirt and stole their wealth from. By the very same citizens of those countries who have now diluted and basically destroyed their national identity and culture they held so dear, taking their jobs and thus taking the wealth back from them as well.

Sierra117, I think its a bit silly that you guys talk as casually about murder here as a fictional show, but there might be wisdom in the words, because they obviously were not written by the disconnected "reasoning" going on here. Maybe It was just a momentary lack of self-awareness and/or foreshadowing the effect and influence fighting and being exposed to the sith had on the jedi/obi-wan over the years and in that moment: Which leads to the lack of vision of the blatant obvious goings on around them and things they are doing, that they would of normally seen otherwise.

The bullied, becomes the bully, no?

Sarky

"Pfft, facts, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
-Homer Simpson

_Myg wrote: »

Morality is always black and white, but the level of culpability in the act is questionable, but as you know, the effects of the act are never questionable.

Sarky, drugs are always harmful; but some are more harmful to your afflictions then they are to you. Besides the obvious physical enhancers and their temporary "benefiets", some drugs give you quick ways of exploring your mind that normally would take a lifetime of work to achieve; which is tantamount to taking a performance enhancing drug for the mind, but as well, is unnatural and damaging to the order around you.

Nice of you to completely ignore the antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, anti-psychotic, antidepressant, antiviral, tumour-killing, blood pressure stabilising, organ transplant facilitating drugs that save countless lives every day. Are they not really drugs?

Abortion is never necessary; as is killing someone who is in a weaker position then you.

Ectopic pregnancy. There goes that point. Are they not really abortions? And to pre-empt your rebuttal, no, they ARE abortions that save a life. Calling it something else won't make that any less true. It just shows your willingness to engage in stupid semantics to justify your stance.

And about the brits; they got their "comeuppance" from the nations they previously treated like dirt and stole their wealth from. By the very same citizens of those countries who have now diluted and basically destroyed their national identity and culture they held so dear, taking their jobs and thus taking the wealth back from them as well.

The British, _Myg. British. 'Brit' is a derogatory term and does not help your case, nor does your gloating about their 'comeuppance' as if every current UK citizen was somehow responsible for the unpleasantness between our two countries over the past few centuries. Are they not really human beings?

Come back when you're capable of avoiding ignorant mass generalisations.

Delirium

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I don't think you have actually read anything I have said; do you only see things through the secular perspective?

Marriage is at base a spiritual order tied to the very nature of our existence as male and female, and has always been so.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

To add the possibility of splitting that order, is against the nature of us and thus it is *always* bad. But then, so is being forced into a marriage or being married when you are not even aware of what is going on (see "Annulment" in the church).

Two questions. 1) How exactly is same-sex marriage against the nature of us? 2) And why is it bad?

Statistics, reports and "facts" calculated and written down on paper can be dangerous if taken literally, just as anything can. A good analyst will remind you that "you have to see the whole picture first", but even then; the time it would take to properly create and present such a thing would last longer then the issue exists on the table, which makes them pointless; and in the end destructive to those who engage with them. They are only really useful after the fact to drive home the result or to make you wonder how it turned out that way to expand your self critiquing a bit. But I do appreciate the work he put into his post and that does make me sad.

You're dismissing any studies/facts or carrying out any studies. So how exactly did you arrive "gay marriage is bad"? This beginning to seem as if you just don't like it and no evidence will sway your opinion.

Morality is always black and white, but the level of culpability in the act is questionable, but as you know, the effects of the act are never questionable.

Morality isn't always black and white, especially when using generalisations.

It's immoral to imprison someone against their will, yet we have people sentenced to years imprisonment for their crimes. By your reasoning, we should release all convicts because there are no nuances to morality.

Sarky, drugs are always harmful; but some are more harmful to your afflictions then they are to you. Besides the obvious physical enhancers and their temporary "benefiets", some drugs give you quick ways of exploring your mind that normally would take a lifetime of work to achieve; which is tantamount to taking a performance enhancing drug for the mind, but as well, is unnatural and damaging to the order around you. Abortion is never necessary; as is killing someone who is in a weaker position then you. And about the brits; they got their "comeuppance" from the nations they previously treated like dirt and stole their wealth from. By the very same citizens of those countries who have now diluted and basically destroyed their national identity and culture they held so dear, taking their jobs and thus taking the wealth back from them as well.

Drugs are always harmful? I would imagine the average patient who has had surgery would disagree. As would many patients would rely on their medication just to stay alive.

Nodin

_Myg wrote: »

Jernal, I don't think you have actually read anything I have said; do you only see things through the secular perspective?

Marriage is at base a spiritual order tied to the very nature of our existence as male and female, and has always been so.

Bit mad the church only realised that about the mid 1500's then.

Sarky

koth wrote: »

Drugs are always harmful? I would imagine the average patient who has had surgery would disagree. As would many patients would rely on their medication just to stay alive.

Currently on a life-long course of thyroxin myself to supplement the half of my thyroid that got cut out nearly 4 years ago. If I'd known then that drugs are always harmful I'd have told the doc he could shove his Eltroxin and I'd have gone back to mass and prayed instead that I wouldn't be afflicted by weight gain, depression, fatigue and a tonne of the other symptoms you get from the crippling of an organ that produces and regulates a shedload of biological processes. I'm sure God would have answered such a prayer IMMEDIATELY.

Sierra 117

Please, Sarky. You know the big G has more important things to be worrying about like helping athletes win races and actors win awards.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

It's all about the suffering. Suffering glorifies god, or some sh1t.

Was in Marks and Spencer in Blackrock last week and passed by two expensively-dressed elderly ladies, discussing somebody else more or less thusly:

Some Ladies wrote:

1: Of course, she's been suffering dreadfully from her illness.
2. Yes, it's terrible to see her now.
1. I wonder why The Lord is making her suffer?
2. All I know is that she's receiving a lot of grace for her suffering.
1. Yes she is. One can never fathom The Lord's intent but it's for the best.
2. Yes, it is.

Can't say I'd like either of these people as friends during my final illness.

Delirium

How does Ireland have such a low maternal death rate?

It's easy when you don't record most of the deaths!

The Central Statistics Office (CSO) has only recorded one sixth of the known maternal deaths in Ireland last year.

According to the CSO's latest statistical report published at the weekend, there was only one maternal death in 2012, in the final quarter of the year, occurring in a woman aged between 25 and 34, in the final quarter.

This is believed to refer to the death of Savita Halappanavar in University Hospital Galway on October 28 last. The CSO refers to maternal deaths under the heading 'complications of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium'.

However, at least five other maternal deaths are known to have taken place in 2012, none of which are recorded in the CSO report.