Abortion Discussion

MrPudding

Kev W wrote: »

So you're saying you want to chop children's limbs off with a rusty machete?

IN THE WOMB!!!

MrP

robdonn

MrPudding wrote: »

IN THE WOMB!!!

AND MAKING A PROFIT!!!

oldrnwisr

Two Sheds wrote: »

I've stated that children are aborted because of DS. You're agreeing with me and offering justification for the disposal of the disabled.

Actually, what you began by claiming was:

Two Sheds wrote: »

That is already the case in the UK, where abortions are carried out up to full term in cases of Downs Syndrome or even for mild disabilities.
92% of Babies With Down Syndrome in England Are Killed in Abortions

which was a response to a comment in a post by recedite:

"A signatory state could legislate to carry out abortions an hour before the birth was due without contravening the convention."

The claim that 92% of DS diagnoses result in abortions is false and robdonn has already posted extensively as to why this is so.


However, the claim that abortions for DS are carried out to full term is also wrong. Abortions can be performed under ground E (and also A, B, F and G) any time during the pregnancy. There are two important points to note here though.
Firstly, although terminations can be carried out at any point, very few actually are. For example, the UK government statistics show that only 190 out of 185,331 abortions were carried out over 24 weeks in 2013. Furthermore, there is no further breakdown of the over 24 week figure. So you cannot claim that abortions are carried out to full term.
Secondly, all of the 190 abortions performed over 24 weeks were under ground E, foetal abnormality. Of this 190, only 14 were as a result of a Down's syndrome diagnosis. Also, the single largest group within the 190 (28 abortions) is categorised using the ICD-10 code Q04 which covers conditions like malformations of the corpus callosum, arhinencephaly, holoprosencephaly and septo-optic dysplasia none of which could even loosely defined as mild disabilities.
Abortions performed under ground E (and A,B,F and G for that matter) are performed for serious, non-trivial and often life-threatening medical conditions. That is why they are sanctioned throughout the pregancy.

You seem to have entered this discussion with some serious faulty assumptions and generalisations about why you think abortions are performed and when it comes to foetal abnormalities you seem to think that people are just having abortions to avoid inconvenience. However, there are serious consequences to some of these conditions which cannot be glossed over with banal emotional appeals.

Two Sheds wrote: »

But you'll have difficulty in convincing me that caring for somebody involves killing them.

I have no intention of convincing you of anything. It is pretty clear to me that you entered into this thread to voice your pro-life opinion and aren't actually interested in constructive debate. I post, just as I do in creationist threads, in case any third party looking at this debate would be taken in by spurious claims like yours.
FWIW, I think that this life at all costs viewpoint that you're espousing is shameful and despicable. We should at all times try to minimise pain and suffering and remember that quality of life is important. To bring a child into this world who will only have a very short life expectancy full of pain, suffering and invasive medical procedures which they can't understand is cruel beyond measure. The humane thing is to avoid such suffering.

There are a lot of factors to be considered in this debate, IVF, sex education, illegal abortions, gender equality but viewpoints as stark and simplistic as yours don't add anything to the debate.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

You own posts consist almost entirely of attempting (badly) to pick holes in the posts of others.

But you appear very reluctant to post any justification for your support for abortion.
That's not very persuasive.

Ditto

Cabaal

Two Sheds wrote: »

An unborn is a child. Abortion is the killing of the unborn.

What am I missing?

The unborn is a fetus,
Even Catholic hospitals have argued in court that a fetus is in no way equal to a baby that has been born.

Lets stick to facts here., instead of trying to include misleading language and words.

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

Lots of things, particularly a traditional approach to the family and to child rearing that the rest of the UK doesn't really have.

Both north and roi liked sticking baby's of unmarried mothers into "care" homes, unfortunately the care part was basically the mafia meaning of the word.... As in "I'll take care of this"

robindch

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. While no recent comments have really broken the charter, a few comments have been less obviously helpful than others.

A little chill all 'round would benefit all and everything, especially your moderators' blood pressure.

Thanking youze.

Two Sheds

Cabaal wrote: »

The unborn is a fetus,
Even Catholic hospitals have argued in court that a fetus is in no way equal to a baby that has been born.

Lets stick to facts here., instead of trying to include misleading language and words.

The question again - when and how does a fetus become a child?
Of course, there's no difference. A fetus is simply a child in early development.

Wordplay doesn't change obvious facts.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

The question again - when and how does a fetus become a child?
Of course, there's no difference. A fetus is simply a child in early development.

Wordplay doesn't change obvious facts.

And a seed is just a flower in early development, but you don't call it a flower.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

The question again - when and how does a fetus become a child?
Of course, there's no difference. A fetus is simply a child in early development.

Wordplay doesn't change obvious facts.

When does an egg become a chicken?

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

The question again - when and how does a fetus become a child?
Of course, there's no difference. A fetus is simply a child in early development.

Wordplay doesn't change obvious facts.

An adult could also be called a cadaver in early development.

Two Sheds

Deleted User wrote: »

An adult could also be called a cadaver in early development.

At the core of support for abortion is the mangling of language - it's the only way to sanitise the unspeakable.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

At the core of support for abortion is the mangling of language - it's the only way to sanitise the unspeakable.

You started it. :P

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

You started it. :P

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us how an unborn becomes a child by virtue of being born.

That one seems to have ye stumped.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us how an unborn becomes a child by virtue of being born.

No, you're not.

On the other hand, we're very much waiting to hear how a new-implanted blastocyst with no real developmental differentiation to speak of (AKA a "clump of cells") is a "child" with "full human rights". Which is what you claimed, several "sidesteps" ago.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us how an unborn becomes a child by virtue of being born.

That one seems to have ye stumped.

Well no, it only applies to those that said that an unborn becomes a child at birth, which people have said but not all/most of us.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us how an unborn becomes a child by virtue of being born.

That one seems to have ye stumped.

I thought we weren't playing word games?

Childhood/Juvenile (Childbirth)(0 - 19)

Childhood is the age span ranging from birth to adolescence.

Here are some markers for Childhood development, you'll note the lack of pre-birth markers.
---
If I changed your statement to

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us how a teenager becomes an adult by virtue of turning 18

it would make the same amount of sense.

alaimacerc

robdonn wrote: »

Well no, it only applies to those that said that an unborn becomes a child at birth, which people have said but not all/most of us.

And when are some/most of us/you saying "childhood" starts? At conception? Implantation? The end of the embyronic/start of the foetal stage? At quickening, ensoulment, 40/80 days? At viability? Gradually? Prefer not to say?

We definitely need to find someone who's 34-odd years old ("post-birth" that is) to run for president next time, by way of a test case...

Two Sheds

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought we weren't playing word games?

Childhood/Juvenile (Childbirth)(0 - 19)

Childhood is the age span ranging from birth to adolescence.

Here are some markers for Childhood development, you'll note the lack of pre-birth markers.
---
If I changed your statement to it would make the same amount of sense.

As we've already seen the UN Convention tells us that childhood begins before birth. It looks as if the supporters of abortion have no time for The Rights of the Child.

The teenage-adult thing might apply, but only if you were using age as a justification for killing the teenager.

robdonn

alaimacerc wrote: »

And when are some/most of us/you saying "childhood" starts? At conception? Implantation? The end of the embyronic/start of the foetal stage? At quickening, ensoulment, 40/80 days? At viability? Gradually? Prefer not to say?

We definitely need to find someone who's 34-odd years old ("post-birth" that is) to run for president next time, by way of a test case...

Luckily I don't need to state my preference as Two Sheds prefers to simply presume to know what I think.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

As we've already seen the UN Convention tells us that childhood begins before birth. It looks as if the supporters of abortion have no time for The Rights of the Child.

What about in a state that does not accept that definition, as the Convention allows for?

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

As we've already seen the UN Convention tells us that childhood begins before birth. It looks as if the supporters of abortion have no time for The Rights of the Child.

Look like that if you read what you saying about other posters, certainly. But as little of what you write is responsive to what others have said, that's not entirely surprising.

The teenage-adult thing might apply, but only if you were using age as a justification for killing the teenager.

So your argument is, essentially, a foetus -- embryo? blastocyte? zygote? -- is a "child" for purposes of "not being killed", but not any other sense whatsoever? So consistency in the use of such language is of no importance. Just so long as one is able to amp up the rhetoric by such devices.

alaimacerc

robdonn wrote: »

Luckily I don't need to state my preference as Two Sheds prefers to simply presume to know what I think.

2S indeed does seem have that preference, but if you don't state what you think, only what you object to being told you think, you risk sounding like Meat Loaf! (Or one or two other posters here, I dare say.)

robdonn

alaimacerc wrote: »

2S indeed does seem have that preference, but if you don't state what you think, only what you object to being told you think, you risk sounding like Meat Loaf! (Or one or two other posters here, I dare say.)

Well I would hope that after a while people would simply stop presuming what I think. :P My only argument is with the presumption, not necessarily with the actual content.

sinead88

I'm very much pro choice. I live in Scotland and I think the system here is so much better. I've started following a lot of pro choice US commentators in regards to the Planned Parenthood debate recently and came across this quote:
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
--- Sister Joan D. Chittister O.S.B.
Funnily enough, It's actually by a nun, but it really resonates with me.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

What about in a state that does not accept that definition, as the Convention allows for?

What about it? I'm pointing out an obvious deduction.

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

Look like that if you read what you saying about other posters, certainly. But as little of what you write is responsive to what others have said, that's not entirely surprising.


So your argument is, essentially, a foetus -- embryo? blastocyte? zygote? -- is a "child" for purposes of "not being killed", but not any other sense whatsoever? So consistency in the use of such language is of no importance. Just so long as one is able to amp up the rhetoric by such devices.

We're discussing killing children (yes, I do feel dirty) and you're concerned about rhetoric?

The reality is that age is used as a justification for killing children.

Two Sheds

sinead88 wrote: »

I'm very much pro choice. I live in Scotland and I think the system here is so much better. I've started following a lot of pro choice US commentators in regards to the Planned Parenthood debate recently and came across this quote:
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
--- Sister Joan D. Chittister O.S.B.
Funnily enough, It's actually by a nun, but it really resonates with me.

Cruelty dressed up as compassion. Some of us want children born and fed.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

sinead88 wrote: »

Funnily enough, It's actually by a nun, but it really resonates with me.

Or "Dissident Nun Sister Joan Chittister", as the CLC would call her!

Why not wanting to criminalise women who don't want to be forced to carry their pregnancies to term makes one a "dissident" in a religious body whose name means "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" is itself quite the puzzler.

Two Sheds

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Two Sheds

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And you don't? Is it the feeding part you're having a problem with? Are you concerned that it might cost you?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sinead88

If a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy, and give her child up for adoption, or raise him or her herself, I am perfectly happy to pay taxes towards that child's upbringing. What I don't support is a system where a woman is forced into giving birth by the state, and ends up in a situation where it is extremely difficult to provide for that child, or where the child ends up in an incredibly underfunded foster care system. Far too many "pro life" people seem to be the types who don't give a second thought to the child once it's born. In my experience, many of them also spout rhetoric about "benefit scroungers" once a single mother needs state support, or else look down upon unwed mothers entirely.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

We're discussing killing children (yes, I do feel dirty) and you're concerned about rhetoric?

You certainly should feel dirty, given your distorted and inflammatory use of language.

I'm "concerned" about such rhetoric because it's used to justify unduly curtailing people's (sensu... how most people use the word "people") liberty. To endanger their health. And indeed until recently to put their lives at risk. And on a basis that doesn't satisfy the basics of social justice and equity.

The reality is that age is used as a justification for killing children.

Still waiting for that definition of "child" from someone so very, very keen to mock those provided by others. I realize it might not constrain the full extent of the things you'd like to criminalise (or keep criminalised), but it might at least constrain your flights of language.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

What about it? I'm pointing out an obvious deduction.

Yes, and I am following it further. A state can adopt the Convention and still define a child as beginning from birth, therefore abide by the Rights of the Child and still perform abortions with no legal quandary.

Two Sheds

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wonder is yours a common reason for support for abortion - not wanting to foot the bill for disadvantaged children?

When you scratch the surface, many areas of 'concern' come down to money.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

I wonder is yours a common reason for support for abortion - not wanting to foot the bill for disadvantaged children?

When you scratch the surface, many areas of 'concern' come down to money.

Ah now, are we making presumptions again?

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Yes, and I am following it further. A state can adopt the Convention and still define a child as beginning from birth, therefore abide by the Rights of the Child and still perform abortions with no legal quandary.

When the head of the UN Human Rights Committee believes that the unborn are not human beings, then we can be sure that states can do whatever they like, as long as it involves killing lots of unborn children.

sinead88

Two Sheds wrote: »

I wonder is yours a common reason for support for abortion - not wanting to foot the bill for disadvantaged children?

When you scratch the surface, many areas of 'concern' come down to money.

How do you feel about disadvantaged adult women? At the moment we have a two tier system where women who have the financial means can afford to go to the UK, and make a choice, whereas those that do not, are constrained by our unjust laws. This totally reinforces the cycle of poverty. Ireland is exporting its issues, rather than dealing with them fairly.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

When the head of the UN Human Rights Committee believes that the unborn are not human beings, then we can be sure that states can do whatever they like, as long as it involves killing lots of unborn children.

Well that's a bit of a leap.

Two Sheds

sinead88 wrote: »

How do you feel about disadvantaged adult women? At the moment we have a two tier system where women who have the financial means can afford to go to the UK, and make a choice, whereas those that do not, are constrained by our unjust laws. This totally reinforces the cycle of poverty. Ireland is exporting its issues, rather than dealing with them fairly.

Didn't one of those women die .. and another seriously injured?

Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live. The same definitely can't be said of the UK.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live.

Sure, relatively safe. It's a modern, developed western democracy. It's no Estonia, though.

The same definitely can't be said of the UK.

Definitely not "the same". On recent evidence, better.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-report-reveals-sharp-rise-in-number-of-maternal-deaths-1.2111831

And no criminalisation of the exercise of bodily autonomy either, as an additional plus.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Didn't one of those women die .. and another seriously injured?

Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live. The same definitely can't be said of the UK.

Didn't Savita Halappanavar die? Or is a single case not sufficient evidence when it doesn't support your own view?

sinead88

That's actually an argument for bringing in abortion legislation. It would mean that women wouldn't have to travel afterwards and could spend longer in the medical facility. They also wouldn't have to be afraid to seek medical help in the event of complications, because it wouldn't be illegal.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Didn't Savita Halappanavar die? Or is a single case not sufficient evidence when it doesn't support your own view?

Lots of people die for lots of different reasons. This thread is about abortion.

Two Sheds

sinead88 wrote: »

That's actually an argument for bringing in abortion legislation. It would mean that women wouldn't have to travel afterwards and could spend longer in the medical facility. They also wouldn't have to be afraid to seek medical help in the event of complications, because it wouldn't be illegal.

Maybe the medical personnel can use that in their defence?

The IFPA gave women great, dangerous advice, didn't they - despite no law being broken.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Lots of people die for lots of different reasons. This thread is about abortion.

And Savita Halappanavar died as an indirect result of not receiving an abortion. On topic, despite your apparent disregard for human life.

Overheal

The same lawmakers in the U.S. Wanting to defund PP are the same ones who want to shut down Medicare, social security, food stamps, and basically all the other systems in place that assist the disadvantaged; indeed a baby born, but not a baby fed - not just a quotable choice of words but actually how messed up some peoples viewpoint is on the situation.