Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

dharma200

christmas2012 posts numerous times in all the threads relating to abortion on boards with the same drivel. I would ignore. Or atleast look through previous threads as the statements are all the same unsubstantiated drivel.

Looking forward to the march on 26th September,

Tipsygypsy

dharma200 wrote: »

christmas2012 posts numerous times in all the threads relating to abortion on boards with the same drivel. I would ignore. Or atleast look through previous threads as the statements are all the same unsubstantiated drivel.

Looking forward to the march on 26th September,

29th Septmeber

MagicMarker

I really cannot see how this thread has gone on as long as it has. I'm not trying to be insensitive here but does anyone here really believe anything Christmas2012 has said? From reading her/his posts here as well as on other forums, I genuinely can't believe this person is anymore than 15 or 16 years of age.

Almost 1000 posts in the thread and we've gotten absolutely nowhere.

Cocolola

Having read through nearly 1000 posts I may have missed this point but I'll state it here anyway:

If you are a married couple, you cannot give a baby up for adoption. Just something else to consider when it's being suggested as an alternative. Or to put it another way, an illegitimate child can't be legally adopted.

Children Eligible for Adoption


The law permits the adoption of:

(a) orphans, and
(b) children born outside marriage, including in certain circumstances, children whose natural parents subsequently marry each other.

Taken from The Adoption Authority Ireland.

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

I know what your trying to say but again.I would say that a pp is only viable when its fused with the egg , thats the begging.of the pp . if the female body destroys the zygote , then thats a natural death and ok . its the artificial termination that.i don't agree with

If the female body destroys the zygote how was it ever "viable"? It was never going to become a person, that was a biological/physical impossibility. How is it any more viable than a sperm cell that doesn't make it to the egg? Or an egg that is expelled before sexual intercourse?

You seem to be picking a completely arbitrary point to say "potential" begins

Bannasidhe

Cocolola wrote: »

Having read through nearly 1000 posts I may have missed this point but I'll state it here anyway:

If you are a married couple, you cannot give a baby up for adoption. Just something else to consider when it's being suggested as an alternative.



Taken from The Adoption Authority Ireland.

That is an excellent point. I had forgotten about that. I suppose there is an, incorrect, perception that married women may not require access to abortion - which is of course nonsense.

Thanks Cocolola for raising that important point.

fitz0

MagicMarker wrote: »

I really cannot see how this thread has gone on as long as it has. I'm not trying to be insensitive here but does anyone here really believe anything Christmas2012 has said? From reading her/his posts here as well as on other forums, I genuinely can't believe this person is anymore than 15 or 16 years of age.

Almost 1000 posts in the thread and we've gotten absolutely nowhere.

I don't know. After 1000 posts, there's been some very interesting back and forths. Christmas2012's posts have gone downhill from the dizzying heights of vaguely credible to farcical but Sin City, doctoremma, hattoncracker and others have all debated well. This thread has given me much to think about as regards when life starts and what actually defines a person.

I must say though, this has been the most level headed debate on abortion I've ever read, no doubt in part due to the moderation.

Tipsygypsy

Have to say I've really enjoyed it - this thread - got SFA done for the past three days because of it but enjoyed it I have. And learnt a lot too.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

If the female body destroys the zygote how was it ever "viable"? It was never going to become a person, that was a biological/physical impossibility. How is it any more viable than a sperm cell that doesn't make it to the egg? Or an egg that is expelled before sexual intercourse?

You seem to be picking a completely arbitrary point to say "potential" begins

to me its viable when they fuse, like someone could call a baby a potential.voter, worker dr even though it could die of cot death . the point is if uniteruppted it will develop. the fact that the mothers body could rejected it , its immaterial as that would be a natural death. the same way a heart attack wouldn't be viewed as murder (not equating abortion as murder btw )

Bannasidhe

MagicMarker wrote: »

I really cannot see how this thread has gone on as long as it has. I'm not trying to be insensitive here but does anyone here really believe anything Christmas2012 has said? From reading her/his posts here as well as on other forums, I genuinely can't believe this person is anymore than 15 or 16 years of age.

Almost 1000 posts in the thread and we've gotten absolutely nowhere.

I think it's been a good debate with some interesting points made on both sides. I know that debating with Sin City has made me examine what I believe and why I believe it which is always valuable.

I think we have gotten somewhere in that we have shown it is possible to debate such an emotive topic in a way which is good natured on the whole and robinch has kept a firm but fair eye on things and been swift to deal with any potential hotspots - so kudos to the wonder MOD robinch.

As for christmas - as someone said it is always good to know your opponents tactics - forewarned is forearmed and all that. Plus, anyone who was 'unaligned' reading this thread could see how so many thing claimed as 'fact' by anti-abortionists are demonstrably false. christmas gave the pro-choice side the perfect opportunity to launch a debunking exercise by bunking (is that an actual word? If not, it should be!).

Tipsygypsy

nothing like a good old fashioned de-bunking!

Bannasidhe

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

nothing like a good old fashioned de-bunking!

especially when the opportunity is handed to you on a plate

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

to me its viable when they fuse, like someone could call a baby a potential.voter, worker dr even though it could die of cot death . the point is if uniteruppted it will develop. the fact that the mothers body could rejected it , its immaterial as that would be a natural death. the same way a heart attack wouldn't be viewed as murder (not equating abortion as murder btw )

But this isn't a question of murder or blame. Those issues are irrelevant to the question of whether something does or doesn't have the potential to become something else.

You are arguing that sperm is not potential person and that a zygote is. Your argument for this is that sperm cannot do anything unless some other process helps it along, but this is true of the zygote. Your other argument is that most sperm will never enter into this process and can never become a person anyway, but this is true of the zygote as well.

8 out of 10 zygotes have no potential to become a person, they are rejected by the woman's body. The fact that this is naturally decided is not relevant because it is nature that decides which sperm won't make it to the egg as well.

If you ignore all the things that might naturally stop a zygote from developing and decide to call it a potential person then what reason do you have for not doing the same to a sperm. You have no idea if each individual sperm will or will not ever develop into a person, but then you have no idea if the zygote will or won't either. You can ensure that the sperm won't become a person through masturbation, but you can ensure that with the zygote as well. You argue we shouldn't do that because the zygote might have the potential to be a person. But you can argue the exact same thing with the sperm. The sperm might, if all processes go as nature intended, develop into a person.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

But this isn't a question of murder or blame. Those issues are irrelevant to the question of whether something does or doesn't have the potential to become something else.

You are arguing that sperm is not potential person and that a zygote is. Your argument for this is that sperm cannot do anything unless some other process helps it along, but this is true of the zygote. Your other argument is that most sperm will never enter into this process and can never become a person anyway, but this is true of the zygote as well.

No I said the sperm alone does not make a potential person, where a zygote would, regardless of what could happen to it ,ie a zygot when formed and left alone will, as long as the body doesnt reject it, make it to an embryo, fetus and eventualy a baby. We know not all sperm cells and eggs make it, but the one that does and forms a zygote should.

Would it be easer if I say the viable zygot, ie the one that does make it, I would feel comfortable with that if you would. This is the zygot that does make it and where someone is actually pregnant.

Zombrex wrote: »

8 out of 10 zygotes have no potential to become a person, they are rejected by the woman's body. The fact that this is naturally decided is not relevant because it is nature that decides which sperm won't make it to the egg as well.

again Im happy to say the viable zygot.

Zombrex wrote: »

If you ignore all the things that might naturally stop a zygote from developing and decide to call it a potential person then what reason do you have for not doing the same to a sperm. You have no idea if each individual sperm will or will not ever develop into a person, but then you have no idea if the zygote will or won't either. You can ensure that the sperm won't become a person through masturbation, but you can ensure that with the zygote as well. You argue we shouldn't do that because the zygote might have the potential to be a person. But you can argue the exact same thing with the sperm. The sperm might, if all processes go as nature intended, develop into a person.

We ok here with the new changes for the viable zygote?

The Mad Hatter

MagicMarker wrote: »

I really cannot see how this thread has gone on as long as it has. I'm not trying to be insensitive here but does anyone here really believe anything Christmas2012 has said? From reading her/his posts here as well as on other forums, I genuinely can't believe this person is anymore than 15 or 16 years of age.

Almost 1000 posts in the thread and we've gotten absolutely nowhere.

In fairness, besides christmas2012, the debate has been polite and interesting.

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

No I said the sperm alone does not make a potential person, where a zygote would, regardless of what could happen to it ,ie a zygot when formed and left alone will, as long as the body doesnt reject it, make it to an embryo, fetus and eventualy a baby. We know not all sperm cells and eggs make it, but the one that does and forms a zygote should.

If you leave a zygote alone it will die. Very quickly. It requires a huge amount of biological processes to get it from zygote to person. So does the sperm. A sperm "alone" will die. But then the sperm isn't alone, it is in the male who is with the female and who both have a natural instinct to mate. This is fundamentally no different than the natural process of the zygote moving from the ovary, or the implantation in the womb wall.

Sin City wrote: »

Would it be easer if I say the viable zygot, ie the one that does make it, I would feel comfortable with that if you would. This is the zygot that does make it and where someone is actually pregnant.

again Im happy to say the viable zygot.

So are you happy then that a zygote by itself is no more valuable than a sperm, that value is not conferred until after implantation when the odds that it can become a person are increased?

Again this seems rather arbitrary. What odds are required to say something now has value? Million to one? 10 to 2? 5 to 1?

Could you not equally say "viable sperm"? We all came from a sperm after all.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

If you leave a zygote alone it will die. Very quickly. It requires a huge amount of biological processes to get it from zygote to person. So does the sperm. A sperm "alone" will die. But then the sperm isn't alone, it is in the male who is with the female and who both have a natural instinct to mate. This is fundamentally no different than the natural process of the zygote moving from the ovary, or the implantation in the womb wall.

If you leave a newborn baby alone it too will die, it needs food warmth and protection to make get it to a stage where it can independently look after itself. Now I think there is a difference between the natural instinct to mate and the zygote being implanted. Again if say condoms are used the sperm does not become viable as there is no way it will make a zygote and reach the implantation phase . This allows me then to accept that the morning after pill, if taken after sex and before any zygote can be formed is permissible as it will not make a viable zygote which in turn will not leed to pregnacy. A viable zygote is preganancy.

Zombrex wrote: »

So are you happy then that a zygote by itself is no more valuable than a sperm, that value is not conferred until after implantation when the odds that it can become a person are increased?

Again this seems rather arbitrary. What odds are required to say something now has value? Million to one? 10 to 2? 5 to 1?

Could you not equally say "viable sperm"? We all came from a sperm after all.

I can accept that once the zygot is implanted and starts to develop from there, it can be declared viable or where pregnancy begins. I wouldnt say viable sperm because it is not just the sperm alone that will develop into a viable zygote

christmas2012

Say WHAT now?!

My experience was positive, so am I lying?

You honestly can call a painful and invasive procedure,with risk of infection, as a positive thing?first off going to the clinic with your ''mistake'',is not a positive thing to go through..It can be lonely,difficult and extremely emotional,some women cry afterwards due to the pain factor,i know i was there..

Also Christmas, I think a lot of women do not take the pain of the procedure into consideration when making this decision. That was way down my list, because the alternative was worse.

The pain is not something I really would have worried about mainly because if the thought of pregnancy is that bad, a little pain for a while doesn't come into it.

What alternative would have been worse,you have a child,like most people do,you have to grow up,and mature,and face the music,possibly hold down a job and support your dependant..

MrPudding

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Thats fine, nobody is arguing with you. The problem is, when you come on here and say you had an abortion and it was professional, well managed etc, everybody "likes" your post etc. When someone comes on and says, "my friend had an abortion and she had a terrible time" everyone accuses her of lying - why is this?? If they think her relaying a negative experience is condeming it, then surely (by logic) someone relaying a positive experience is promoting it?

You really should read her posts. She was, and again is in the last few pages, stating the her friend's experience is the norm and the people that had less bad experiences are wrong.

She is not merely saying my friend's experience was x. She has repeatedly stated how abortion clinics, in general, work and how woman who have abortions are treated based on her friends single experience.

Sin City wrote: »

It may not be a real life scenario just a hypothtical to see where people stand.

Ok lets say somehow the baby and the mother share one vital organ (somehow)
removal would kill the mother. removing said organ from baby by terminating it would save the mother (again I know unrealistic but thinking on the hop here just humour me)

To be honest, you scenario is less like abortion and more like that of conjoined twins. Which raised an interesting question, what would your position be in the Jodie & Mary case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/937586.stm

MrP

Lingua Franca

Every 5 years I go to the doctors (first time was in a hospital). I take painkillers beforehand because I've been warned ahead of time what's in store. I strip from the waist down and get up on the bed. I get a pelvic examination and then the doctor dilates my cervix, removes my old mirena device and inserts a new one.

It's painful and invasive and puts me at risk of infection. It even gives me cramps for a few days afterwards.

My mirena rocks, I can't recommend it highly enough. I think more women should use it and frequently recommend it to my friends. Choosing that was one of the best decisions I've ever made. Definitely nothing but a postive thing.

robindch

More "you're a liar" style prose + unhelpful personal comments deleted.

Christmas - I pointed out to you that your claim that "abortion is invasive and painful" is factually false. So I would appreciate it if you would refrain from repeating it as though it were true all of the time. Thanks.

christmas2012

"abortion is invasive and painful" is factually false.

Any invasive procedure does have pain involved why deny it completely,I think it is irresponsible to say it has no pain whatsoever..

Anyway thats all i have to say on it for today,anytime i go on i seem to get everybodys back up..

The reason why i come on and have this stance is because of what i witnessed with a close friend of mine,she was in a lot of pain after the abortion,and was crying..Its something i dont think given the trauma i would go through after what i witnessed,she only got one pill for pain medication afterwards,and infection set in she got no antibiotics afterwards,and had to wait until an irish chemist had the antibiotic stocked which took a couple of days..

I dont think abortion is an easy thing to go through,it doesnt scratch out all your problems,you can be left with very terrible memories.

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

What alternative would have been worse,you have a child,like most people do,you have to grow up,and mature,and face the music,possibly hold down a job and support your dependant..

I find it very presumptious to comment on what the alternative to an abortion would be for any woman here. No-body has published the finer details of their circumstance and so you can't possibley know what the 'alternative' would have been.

MrPudding wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/937586.stm

MrP

Thats one of the saddest things I've ever read, but I do think that they made the right judgement.

28064212

christmas2012 wrote: »

Any invasive procedure does have pain involved

Not true. Many abortions are performed under general anaesthetic. Not dissimilar to an appendectomy

christmas2012 wrote: »

I think it is irresponsible to say it has no pain whatsoever..

Both blanket statements are false. But you are the only one saying that all abortions are painful. No-one has said that no abortions are painful

christmas2012 wrote: »

Anyway thats all i have to say on it for today,anytime i go on i seem to get everybodys back up..

Probably because you continually make factually false statements

christmas2012 wrote: »

The reason why i come on and have this stance is because of what i witnessed with a close friend of mine,she was in a lot of pain after the abortion,and was crying..Its something i dont think given the trauma i would go through after what i witnessed,she only got one pill for pain medication afterwards,and infection set in she got no antibiotics afterwards,and had to wait until an irish chemist had the antibiotic stocked which took a couple of days..

And yet she still hasn't changed her mind and said she shouldn't have gotten it

christmas2012

LAST REPLY FOR TODAY: whether you get concious sedation or g.a for the abortion,it is still going to be painful afterwards,and it doesnt take away risk of infection

28064212

christmas2012 wrote: »

LAST REPLY FOR TODAY: whether you get concious sedation or g.a for the abortion,it is still going to be painful afterwards

Christmas, answer these yes/no questions (if you can):

• Do all abortions cause pain?
• Can an appendectomy cause pain?
• Is an appendectomy invasive?
• Can an appendectomy be a positive experience?

christmas2012 wrote: »

and it doesnt take away risk of infection

Having an abortion has a risk of infection. Not having an abortion has a risk of infection (since you still have to give birth, which carries its own risk of infection)

Actually, the only way to remove the risk of infection is to have a medical abortion.

kylith

Christmas, if your friend was in so much pain would you not have gone to the chemist and picked up some Solpadine or something? Or gone back to the clinic and said your friend was in pain and asked for more tablets? Maybe it's just me, but if my friend were in agony I wouldn't just sit and tut about it, I'd be out getting some godsdamned Neurofen. Many procedures are painful but don't come with a course of ibuprofen because pain medication is readily available in any chemist.

Similarly I don't understand your obsession with the fact that General Anaesthetic isn't always used. Many, more invasive, procedures such as caesarean sections, eye or ear operations, knee or shoulder operations, or brain surgery are performed under Local Anaesthetic. This is because a GA has more potential complications, and needs to be administered by an anaesthetist. Even the most qualified surgeon on the planet can't administer his own anaesthetic.

Cocolola

christmas2012 wrote: »

Any invasive procedure does have pain involved why deny it completely,I think it is irresponsible to say it has no pain whatsoever..

Anyway thats all i have to say on it for today,anytime i go on i seem to get everybodys back up..

The reason why i come on and have this stance is because of what i witnessed with a close friend of mine,she was in a lot of pain after the abortion,and was crying..Its something i dont think given the trauma i would go through after what i witnessed,she only got one pill for pain medication afterwards,and infection set in she got no antibiotics afterwards,and had to wait until an irish chemist had the antibiotic stocked which took a couple of days..

I dont think abortion is an easy thing to go through,it doesnt scratch out all your problems,you can be left with very terrible memories.

Well I think it's irresponsible for you to be consistently declaring your second-hand experience as facts.

You have been shown numerous times on this thread that not all abortions are carbon copies of what your friend went through. In fact your friend seems to have had, thankfully, a very uncommon experience. The women here aren't "denying" they felt any pain, they are telling you that they genuinely did not feel any. I find your blatant disregard for their accounts of it disgraceful.

Sin City

MrPudding wrote: »

To be honest, you scenario is less like abortion and more like that of conjoined twins. Which raised an interesting question, what would your position be in the Jodie & Mary case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/937586.stm

MrP

I can see it does alright match that of a conjoined twin

Anway from I read there it seems that Mary was going to die anyway even without the operation, and without the operation both would die. So in that scebario it was the right call. Its an impossiblel position one in which I never want to have to make the final decesion on.

robindch

christmas2012 wrote: »

Any invasive procedure does have pain involved why deny it completely,I think it is irresponsible to say it has no pain whatsoever.

So far as I'm aware, there are abortion procedures which are pain-free, as well, as abortion procedures which involve pain that goes from very limited, to substantial. As above, it's factually correct to claim that some procedures are painful, but it is factually false to claim that all are.

christmas2012 wrote: »

[...] anytime i go on i seem to get everybodys back up.

People in general are not annoyed that you're putting forward your position, even though it's one that many here, but not all, will disagree with. What people are annoyed about, with a fair degree of justification, that you're repeating claims that are factually false. It's also inappropriate to take the one example you're familiar with -- I'm sure most or probably all posters will agree that it was a desperately unpleasant experience -- and to claim that all people's experiences are like that. That's simply not true.