Abortion Discussion

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ok nobody can make that call

so brain dead patients should be left on life support indefinitely?

mbiking123

koth wrote: »

so brain dead patients should be left on life support indefinitely?

Discussion has gone off topic

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

Discussion has gone off topic

why? the womans body was on life support after brain death to allow the foetus to develop. why is the womans spirit of less value compared to the foetus?

mbiking123

koth wrote: »

why? the womans body was on life support after brain death to allow the foetus to develop. why is the womans spirit of less value compared to the foetus?

What makes you think woman is less important ?

I have indicated who can make the call to turn off life support as it maybe the wrong call as I previously indicated with link's. How can life support be left on indefinitely as that's impossible. The body will eventually degrade, it's a question that I cannot answer as there is no question (it cannot happen)

that is like Nelson Mandela, should life support be turned off ? According to the following not unless major organs fail-do you think I can make that call ?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nelson-mandela-life-support-stay-2034269

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Discussion has gone off topic

How has it gone off topic when what constitutes life is at the very heart of the topic?

An embryo does not have a functioning brain. It has the potential to develop a functioning brain but this is not guaranteed.

Anencephaly is when a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp do not develop but 'switching off' life support is illegal as it is still 'human life'.

My question - which you are still avoiding answering is:

What exactly is the difference between withdrawing life support for a feotus that does not have a functioning brain and withdrawing life support for an already born adult that does not have a functioning brain?

Both are still 'alive' but dependent on something that is not part of their own body to survive - both are persons - both are 'alive'.

No one asked you to make the call - you were asked to explain what exactly is the difference and why there is no 'pro-life' campaign to save the lives of people who are declared brain dead. Are their lives not worth 'saving'?

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No one asked you to make the call - you were asked to explain what exactly is the difference and why there is no 'pro-life' campaign to save the lives of people who are declared brain dead. Are their lives not worth 'saving'?

None

people like
Nelson Mandella on life support has more 'support' than an unborn child

25% abortion rate in Sweden, that the sort of thing what get the pro-life campaign motivated. Nobody supports those unborn

Thousands upon thousands every year, Sweden loses more to abortion than murder, war etc etc

that's the difference

Pherekydes

mbiking123 wrote: »

Thousands upon thousands every year, Sweden loses more to abortion than murder, war etc etc

Every country loses more to abortion than all other causes put together. Studies have shown (you can use google to find them) that about half of all pregnancies end in abortion.

What happens to all those souls, I wonder?

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

None

people like
Nelson Mandella on life support has more 'support' than an unborn child

25% abortion rate in Sweden, that the sort of thing what get the pro-life campaign motivated. Nobody supports those unborn

Thousands upon thousands every year, Sweden loses more to abortion than murder, war etc etc

that's the difference

Mandela is not brain dead so why do you keep referring to him?

Were you not complaining about people dragging the thread off topic yet twice now you have referred to a 95 year old man with a functioning brain who was for a short period of time on life support and ohhh look - we are back to Sweden.

We are not talking about Sweden. We are talking about Ireland where the 'unborn' without a functioning brain are protected but the already born in the same condition are not yet I see no billboards, newspaper opinion pieces, statements from various religious types, threads on Boards or posts from you blattering on about how their lives must be protected.

Makes ones wonder if the fact that they are not in someone else's womb is the difference.

As for Nobody supports the unborn? Are you nobody? Are all of those people in Iona and Youth Defence Nobody?

Such a vocal group of nobodies.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mandela is not brain dead so why do you keep referring to him?

Were you not complaining about people dragging the thread off topic yet twice now you have referred to a 95 year old man with a functioning brain who was for a short period of time on life support and ohhh look - we are back to Sweden.

We are not talking about Sweden. We are talking about Ireland where the 'unborn' without a functioning brain are protected but the already born in the same condition are not yet I see no billboards, newspaper opinion pieces, statements from various religious types, threads on Boards or posts from you blattering on about how their lives must be protected.

Makes ones wonder if the fact that they are not in someone else's womb is the difference.

As for Nobody supports the unborn? Are you nobody? Are all of those people in Iona and Youth Defence Nobody?

Such a vocal group of nobodies.

well this is an abortion thread, perhaps start one for people on life support machines

I was referring to those aborted in Sweden, who was representing them - nobody - just killed

oldrnwisr

mbiking123 wrote: »

25% abortion rate in Sweden, that the sort of thing what get the pro-life campaign motivated. Nobody supports those unborn

And? So? Therefore?

What has Sweden's abortion rate got to do with anything?

In case nobody ever explained this to you before, laws restricting or banning abortion don't actually have any effect on the abortion rates.

There is no correlation, much less causation, between the restrictiveness of abortion laws and abortion rates.

From this link, out of 53 African countries, only 3 have abortion on demand (i.e. Tunisia, South Africa, Cape Verde). However, the abortion rate for this group (defined per my last post) for 2003 is 29.
Again from the link, the number of countries comprising Latin America and the Caribbean is 30. Again, only 3 countries have abortion on demand (Cuba, Guyana, Uruguay). The abortion rate for this group is 31.
Now, let's look at North America. Both countries have a category 4 (i.e. abortion on demand) legal system. However, the abortion rate is just 21.
Finally, if we look at the developed world (Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) we see that out of 40 countries there are 26 with abortion on demand laws and yet the abortion rate is 19.

We have a good understanding of the causal factors of social issues like abortion and they are far more complex than the picture you're attempting to paint. The real issues that we need to tackle if we want to reduce abortions globally are women's rights, education, access to and promotion of modern contraceptive methods and access to safe abortion.

We already know that one of the principal factors in the procurement of an abortion is an unplanned pregancy and in this we know that 82% of unplanned pregancies in developing countries result from a lack of uptake in contraception.

The numbers of Irish women seeking abortions abroad has already been falling over the last 10 years from 6320 in 2003 to 4402 in 2010. This has not been implemented through toughening abortion legislation.

Finally, just to put a point on this topic, the people who actually research this area have already concluded that abortion laws have no impact on abortion rates or demand:

"The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances."


Sources:

Induced abortions: estimated rates and trends worldwide

Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

well this is an abortion thread, perhaps start one for people on life support machines

I was referring to those aborted in Sweden, who was representing them - nobody - just killed

You are the one who insisted that the life of every feotus must be preserved as it is a person not me. Therefore, logically, if human life is so precious then surely those who profess to be 'pro-life' should be equally outraged by the switching off of life support machines - is that not 'murder' too?

You seem uncomfortable and defensive with this line of questioning which makes me wonder if you believe that the lives that must be preserved are not all lives - just those that happen to be in a woman's womb whether welcome or not.

Perhaps you should start a thread about abortion in Sweden since you are so concerned...

aloyisious

I saw Youth Defence at the GPO recruiting today. They had several pictures on display, including one (entitled "Rubbish") of a black plastic rubbish bag filled with what they seemed to want to present as the bodies of four dead aborted babies.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are the one who insisted that the life of every feotus must be preserved as it is a person not me. Therefore, logically, if human life is so precious then surely those who profess to be 'pro-life' should be equally outraged by the switching off of life support machines - is that not 'murder' too?

yes and also like war etc etc

what's so hard about that !!!!

Next you will be saying I approve of goin to an abortion clinic with an AK-47, oh that's right someone already said that to me !

mbiking123

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw Youth Defence at the GPO recruiting today. They had several pictures on display, including one (entitled "Rubbish") of a black plastic rubbish bag filled with what they seemed to want to present as the bodies of four dead aborted babies.

Did you join up ?

kylith

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well this is a good example

'Baby whose life support was switched off for 20 MINUTES stuns doctors by continuing to breathe...and goes on to make an amazing recovery

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2383216/Baby-life-support-switched-20-MINUTES-stuns-doctors-continuing-breathe--goes-make-amazing-recovery.html#ixzz2kp56wH96

How can anyone make that call ?

You are aware that such children are in the vast, vast minority, yes? That's why they make the news. For every foetus the doctors mistakenly diagnose as incompatible with life that survives, hundreds or thousands more are correctly diagnosed. Would you really force 99 women to carry a doomed foetus to term on the off chance that the hundredth has been misdiagnosed?

PopePalpatine

<Speculation on Identity is explicitly against Boards.ie Terms of Use>

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

yes and also like war etc etc

what's so hard about that !!!!

Next you will be saying I approve of goin to an abortion clinic with an AK-47, oh that's right someone already said that to me !

Oh do stop hufflin and pufflin. I didn't accuse you of anything as well you know so do stick the outrage back in your pocket and explain to me what is the difference between protecting the life of a feotus with a non-functioning brain and that of an adult with a non-functioning brain?

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh do stop hufflin and pufflin. I didn't accuse you of anything as well you know so do stick the outrage back in your pocket and explain to me what is the difference between protecting the life of a feotus with a non-functioning brain and that of an adult with a non-functioning brain?

Its as simple as this, mistakes happen. One mistake that ends a life is too much. Do you know of any incidents where a person was told a child would not survive and did. Well I do, it happened in France, I was shown a picture of the girl by a relation. In fact the doctors said it was mad to go ahead with the pregnancy, well she did and girl is fine, good intelligence, no handicaps, goes to school - all is ok with her. if she did what the doctors said then that girl would not be alive today.

How can a doctor be so certain the unborn brain is not functioning, 100% certain - they cant. if I had cancer etc and a necessary operation would only give me 1% chance of survival-I would still do it.

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Its as simple as this, mistakes happen. One mistake that ends a life is too much. Do you know of any incidents where a person was told a child would not survive and did. Well I do, it happened in France, I was shown a picture of the girl by a relation. In fact the doctors said it was mad to go ahead with the pregnancy, well she did and girl is fine, good intelligence, no handicaps, goes to school - all is ok with her. if she did what the doctors said then that girl would not be alive today.

How can a doctor be so certain the unborn brain is not functioning, 100% certain - they cant. if I had cancer etc and a necessary operation would only give me 1% chance of survival-I would still do it.

Same argument can be made for those already born who have been declared brain dead.

The difference in the case of the unborn a living woman is forced to carry within her own body a feotus which is extremely unlikely to have a functioning brain.

What gives you or anyone else the right to do that?

Would you go into an ICU unit and tell a grieving mother she has no choice - she cannot let her brain dead child go?
Would you tell her it would be murder?
Would you support picketing ICU's?

Yet that is exactly what is done to women who are carry a feotus with Anencephaly.

It is barbaric.

lazygal

Some foetuses HAVE NO BRAIN. Sorry for shouting but how can a foetus with no brain survive? A bog standard scan will show this, no way can there be any mistake.


Its like all that matters is gestation and birth. After that you're on your own with your trauma.

Nodin

lazygal wrote: »

Some foetuses HAVE NO BRAIN. Sorry for shouting but how can a foetus with no brain survive?

Sweden Nelson Mandela.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Sweden Nelson Mandela.

You forgot to link to the Daily Mail.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You forgot to link to the Daily Mail.

Funny, I feel a Southpark moment is coming soon

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Funny, I feel a Southpark moment is coming soon

oh joy.

If your current pattern is any indication we can await a post accusing people of going off topic shortly afterwards...

Any chance you combine the two and save time?

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

oh joy.

If your current pattern is any indication we can await a post accusing people of going off topic shortly afterwards...

Any chance you combine the two and save time?

Ok, as requested

Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut
Cartman's Mom attempted to get her son a "42nd trimester" abortion,
and finds out that such a late abortion is illegal,
she says "Well, I think you need to keep your laws off of my body."
Later in the episode, Mrs Cartman says "I should've thought of raising a child before having sex."

probably not off topic !

See, 2 in 1

_rebelkid

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Same argument can be made for those already born who have been declared brain dead.

The difference in the case of the unborn a living woman is forced to carry within her own body a feotus which is extremely unlikely to have a functioning brain.

What gives you or anyone else the right to do that?

Would you go into an ICU unit and tell a grieving mother she has no choice - she cannot let her brain dead child go?
Would you tell her it would be murder?
Would you support picketing ICU's?

Yet that is exactly what is done to women who are carry a feotus with Anencephaly.

It is barbaric.

Great point as per usual Bann. Forcing any woman to be an incubator is just insane. As is forcing anyone to have an abortion. Hence why choice should be a thing.

Turtwig

How can a man get an abortion?

_rebelkid

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ok, as requested

Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut
Cartman's Mom attempted to get her son a "42nd trimester" abortion,
and finds out that such a late abortion is illegal,
she says "Well, I think you need to keep your laws off of my body."
Later in the episode, Mrs Cartman says "I should've thought of raising a child before having sex."

probably not off topic !

See, 2 in 1

The f*ck has this got to do with Abortion? If this is the flippancy with which you regard abortion, then whatever credibility you thought any of you're arguments had is gone.

When you think the crazies are gone...

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You forgot to link to the Daily Mail.

No, Nelson Mandela isn't white enough for them. :rolleyes:

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ok, as requested

Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut
Cartman's Mom attempted to get her son a "42nd trimester" abortion,
and finds out that such a late abortion is illegal,
she says "Well, I think you need to keep your laws off of my body."
Later in the episode, Mrs Cartman says "I should've thought of raising a child before having sex."

probably not off topic !

See, 2 in 1

what's your point? Women who have abortions are sluts or that abortion allows for the killing of 10 year olds?