Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

Folks - please tone down this thread. That means less of the extremist language and aggressive attitudes from everybody.

Thanking youse.

Brown Bomber

SebBerkovich wrote: »

In the context of this thread my comment was obviously referring to the fact that someone has made a personal, moral and legal choice for themselves and in that context you have no right to feel hard done by because you happen to disagree with them.

(thowing in the padophillia thing as "logic" was to say the least, out of order.)

How many times do you need this explained to you?

This was your assertion: ""You have no right to feel so aggrieved by something that has nothing to do you with you."

Do you stand by this? If you do then it also applies to you and any event that doesn't directly concern you.

For example, you have no right to feel aggrieved at female circumcision in Africa unless you are a African female who has been circumcised.

_rebelkid

I know I posted this earlier, but the issue of fetal pain came up again about 2 pages back, and I think people may still be interested in it.

No fetal pain up to 24 weeks

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not talking about banning anything to be fair. I'm talking about this morally.

No, you did not specifically call for something to be 'banned' - you are calling for it to remain banned.
Given your stance it is fair to assume that were abortion more freely available in Ireland you would be calling for it to be banned.


'morally' the case can be made to ban alcohol.

'Morally' is such a nebulous term - as it 'right' and 'wrong' - in some countries it is considered 'morally right' to cut the hand off a thief, yet we in Ireland would consider that to be 'morally wrong'.

I find it morally abhorrent to force a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and morally wrong to bring a child into this world whom one does not want only to hand them into the care system.

Brown Bomber

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Who and how, do you decide what's right and what's wrong?

I try to understand the implications. With abortion it is complicated IMO. It is wrong I believe to force anyone to do anything against their will. However, (under normal circumstances) it is also wrong IMO to terminate the life of what would have been your child in barbaric and gruesome procedures where remove the brain to facilitate crushing the skull or tear and rip the unborn child from the womb limb by limb and piece by piece at a stage where the foetus may feel pain.

IT-Guy

SebBerkovich wrote: »

In the context of this thread my comment was obviously referring to the fact that someone has made a personal, moral and legal choice for themselves and in that context you have no right to feel hard done by because you happen to disagree with them.

(thowing in the padophillia thing as "logic" was to say the least, out of order.)

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many times do you need this explained to you?

This was your assertion: ""You have no right to feel so aggrieved by something that has nothing to do you with you."

Do you stand by this? If you do then it also applies to you and any event that doesn't directly concern you.

For example, you have no right to feel aggrieved at female circumcision in Africa unless you are a African female who has been circumcised.

Again your faulty logic at work, do you see no difference between the bolded bits?

IT-Guy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I try to understand the implications. With abortion it is complicated IMO. It is wrong I believe to force anyone to do anything against their will. However, (under normal circumstances) it is also wrong IMO to terminate the life of what would have been your child in barbaric and gruesome procedures where remove the brain to facilitate crushing the skull or tear and rip the unborn child from the womb limb by limb and piece by piece at a stage where the foetus may feel pain.

You're revelling in that graphic description like a pig in s**t. Give it up BB, it doesn't happen as a regular procedure as has been shown to you numerous times in this thread.

Brown Bomber

_rebelkid wrote: »

I know I posted this earlier, but the issue of fetal pain came up again about 2 pages back, and I think people may still be interested in it.

No fetal pain up to 24 weeks

Yes, there is debate within the scientific community. Including the authors of your report who benefit from the cash-cow of abortion.

I really wanted to respond to oldernwiser's excellent post earlier as it was the best rebuttal of my argumeand hope to in due course.

But that report he linked to was authored by abortionists and lobbyists including one who didn't declare their conflict of interest.

kylith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It does not demean my argument at all. She was completely blase about it. In her view her child would have been defective and was therefore worthless to her and she wanted a "normal" baby.

She may have appeared to be blasé, and maybe she was, but you have no idea what was really going on in her head.

Have you read up on hydrocephaly at all? It's the kind of thing that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy; constant headaches, blindness, pain, brain damage, seizures, and death. TBH if I was in that situation I can't say that I'd make a different choice to your friend. It has nothing to do with wanting a 'perfect' baby and everything to do with not wanting to bring a child into the world who will know only pain and suffering for their short lives.

bumper234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I try to understand the implications. With abortion it is complicated IMO. It is wrong I believe to force anyone to do anything against their will.

But it is ok to force a woman to carry a baby to term?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

However, (under normal circumstances) it is also wrong IMO to terminate the life of what would have been your child in barbaric and gruesome procedures where remove the brain to facilitate crushing the skull or tear and rip the unborn child from the womb limb by limb and piece by piece at a stage where the foetus may feel pain.

Again with the unnecessary graphic description of a process that does not and never will take place in Ireland.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Folks - please tone down this thread. That means less of the extremist language and aggressive attitudes from everybody.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many times do you need this explained to you?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] barbaric and gruesome procedures where remove the brain to facilitate crushing the skull or tear and rip the unborn child from the womb limb by limb and piece by piece [...]

I'm not going to repeat the warning from 45 minutes ago.

Just to be perfectly clear - posters will be carded or banned at the mods' discretion if there are any further significant uses of extremist language or generally antisocial attitudes. Please see the forum charter, Rule 2.

If you can't debate this contentious topic calmly, then go do it somewhere other than A+A.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I try to understand the implications. With abortion it is complicated IMO. It is wrong I believe to force anyone to do anything against their will. However, (under normal circumstances) it is also wrong IMO to terminate the life of what would have been your child in barbaric and gruesome procedures where remove the brain to facilitate crushing the skull or tear and rip the unborn child from the womb limb by limb and piece by piece at a stage where the foetus may feel pain.

Again with the graphic details.

Shall we discuss the graphic details of labour?

Shall we talk about the physical pain, the ripping, the cutting, the stitches - the hours - if not days - of excruciating pain?

Shall we post illustrations of what it looks like when women hemorrhage and bleed out?

Funny how pro-lifers who are so quick to post images, illustrations and graphic details of the most gruesome kind they can find never want to talk about that...

I think before anyone who has never been in labour wants to quibble about 'how much pain' or suggest a women who does not want to be pregnant 'just' carry it to term and put if up for adoption as if pregnancy and labour were little more painful than a bad case of gas should do as these guys do and have a little taster of what 'contractions' feel like.
Just the contractions mind - not the actual birth part. That could involve scalpels, forceps and stitches where one really doesn't want to have stitches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtR_-MINR1o

Brown Bomber

IT-Guy wrote: »

You're revelling in that graphic description like a pig in s**t. Give it up BB, it doesn't happen as a regular procedure as has been shown to you numerous times in this thread.

D & E method is a regular procedure in the UK.

Terminations at greater than 15 weeks of gestation

• Dilatation and evacuation, preceded by preparation, are safe and effective when undertaken by expert hands.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/termination-of-pregnancy

Here is D & E described by a doctor who had carried it out.

[SNIP]

bumper234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I try to understand the implications. With abortion it is complicated IMO. It is wrong I believe to force anyone to do anything against their will. However, (under normal circumstances) it is also wrong IMO to terminate the life of what would have been your child in barbaric and gruesome procedures where remove the brain to facilitate crushing the skull or tear and rip the unborn child from the womb limb by limb and piece by piece at a stage where the foetus may feel pain.

bumper234 wrote: »

But it is ok to force a woman to carry a baby to term?

You going to continue to ignore this?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

D & E method is a regular procedure in the UK.
.........

You've some statistics as to frequency?

Brown Bomber

bumper234 wrote: »

You going to continue to ignore this?

How am I ignoring it? I have already answered it in the bold section you quoted. No it is not ok, hence the moral conflict I have.

Are you in possession of such a moral conflict? Do you think it is okay to take the life of an unborn child in a gruesome medical procedure that may cause unspeakable pain to the unborn child?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

You've some statistics as to frequency?

Wouldn't you agree with the very real possibility of pain that one is too many?

bumper234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How am I ignoring it? I have already answered it in the bold section you quoted. No it is not ok, hence the moral conflict I have.

Are you in possession of such a moral conflict? Do you think it is okay to take the life of an unborn child in a gruesome medical procedure that may cause unspeakable pain to the unborn child?

Yes i think it is ok to abort a fetus if it means saving the mothers life. I have no problem stating that in this circumstance i would ok abortion. also there is no PROOF that the procedure causes ANY pain never mind "unspeakable pain" so please again i ask stop with the sensationalist posting.

Brown Bomber

kylith wrote: »

She may have appeared to be blasé, and maybe she was, but you have no idea what was really going on in her head.

Have you read up on hydrocephaly at all? It's the kind of thing that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy; constant headaches, blindness, pain, brain damage, seizures, and death. TBH if I was in that situation I can't say that I'd make a different choice to your friend. It has nothing to do with wanting a 'perfect' baby and everything to do with not wanting to bring a child into the world who will know only pain and suffering for their short lives.

I believe I understand the motivations of this person better than you having talked to her myself and to my wife afterwards about it. They are childhood friends and tell each other everything.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wouldn't you agree with the very real possibility of pain that one is too many?

No.

As far as I know, this is one possible procedure at a certain stage of pregnancy. I suspect that its being used here for its seemingly "gruesome" nature, thus my interest in its actual frequency of use.

Brown Bomber

bumper234 wrote: »

Yes i think it is ok to abort a fetus if it means saving the mothers .

Not what i asked :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

No.

As far as I know, this is one possible procedure at a certain stage of pregnancy. I suspect that its being used here for its seemingly "gruesome" nature, thus my interest in its actual frequency of use.

What difference does how often something happens make to something being right or wrong?

Are Honour killings any less wrong in the West because they happen less often?

IT-Guy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

D & E method is a regular procedure in the UK.


Here is D & E described by a doctor who had carried it out.

[SNIP]

Dealt with by Lingua Franca

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Bomber
Fair enough but I don't how you would go about arguing this. Take this tiny little baby for example. How do you go about gauging the pain felt this tiny little child being forcibly grabbed by a forceps, manipulated into position, having their head sliced open and then their brain vacuumed out?

Lingua Franca wrote:

What in the name of Bod is this?

This baby has not been forcibly grabbed by forceps, manouvered, had it's head sliced open or it's brain vacuumed out. This baby is clearly alive.

You posted a graphic and yet false description and a pic of preemie. How pathetic. This is such a very blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion post that you have actually overdone it to the point of ridiculousness.

Anyway, to put all of this nonsense to rest: in later term abortions the foetal heart is stopped with an injection, usually of Digoxin, the day before labour is induced and these graphic descriptions of conscious foetuses being sliced apart are utter bull, psychopaths like Kermit Gosnell thankfully being an aberration.

Also bear in mind that later term abortions are also rare and tend to be performed in the case of fatal foetal abnormality. I hope no one who has had a termination for medical reasons is reading these erroneous graphic descriptions coupled with pics of a premature baby which was, disgustingly, intended to inspire guilt.

Shame on you.

Brown Bomber

IT-Guy wrote: »

Comprehensively dealt with by Mark Hamill here

?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What difference does how often something happens make to something being right or wrong?

As far as I'm concerned the mothers wishes take pre-eminence, so "right and wrong" are neither here nor there. You stated

D & E method is a regular procedure in the UK.

I just want you to back that up with some statistics. I trust I'm not going to have to keep chasing you for an answer, while dodging various rabbit holes and men of straw?

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

?

Fixed Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85418782&postcount=9271

SebBerkovich

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What difference does how often something happens make to something being right or wrong?

Are Honour killings any less wrong in the West because they happen less often?

The extreme comparisons and logical gymnastics youre making of abortions (to genatal mutilation, peadofillia and now Honour killings) seem to betray a desperation in your argument.

You're trying very hard indeed to make abortion out to be something far more horrific in order to make it easier for you discount any possibility of accepting that it can be necessary.

Nodin

Penn wrote: »

Fixed Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85418782&postcount=9271

So it doesn't happen in Britain in any statistically significant amount....

which is a stark contrast from

Brown Bomber wrote:

D & E method is a regular procedure in the UK.

kylith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

D & E method is a regular procedure in the UK.


Here is D & E described by a doctor who had carried it out.

I find it quite interesting that no reason for that procedure is given. The patient is quite young, so I think that it is more than possible that her pregnancy is injurious to either her physical or mental health. ETA: That link is to 'Priests for Life', so hardly an unbiased source.

You keep saying that you don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, yet you keep harping on about procedures that are generally only done in extremis. If you don't think that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy that could well kill her why do you keep bringing up procedures that, 99 times out of 100, are done to save the woman's life?

bumper234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not what i asked :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How am I ignoring it? I have already answered it in the bold section you quoted. No it is not ok, hence the moral conflict I have.

Are you in possession of such a moral conflict? Do you think it is okay to take the life of an unborn child in a gruesome medical procedure that may cause unspeakable pain to the unborn child?

Yes i do think it's ok to abort a fetus if the mothers life is in danger. Now you can again comeback and say "That's not what i asked" but i choose to take the pro life stance and will ignore the part that i deem not to be part of the issue for me. There is no proof of pain to the fetus therefore that part of the question is irrelevant.