Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:01am

obplayer wrote: »

Why not give an answer? Or are you afraid to?

Why not tell us why you are so desperate to know my religion first? You obviously have pretty much nothing else to go on since you're pining for a new angle. "Tell me you're a Catholic so I can ridicule you for being a Catholic". Does that constitute addressing the issue in your mind?
Looks like it.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:03am

SW wrote: »

Nonsense. Anyone can provide for the child once it has been born, it's no longer reliant on a physical connection to the woman for nutrients/food etc.

Nonsense. Anyone can provide for the child as soon as it is viable outside the womb. So yet again you have failed to make any distinction whatsoever between the stage where independence is possible medically and the actual birth.
So your own reasoning of "anyone can provide" means you support termination up to independently viable, not birth.

Delirium · 06-05-2015 9:14am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nonsense. Anyone can provide for the child as soon as it is viable outside the womb.

That doesn't contract what I posted, so I'm not sure how you view what I posted as nonsense.

So yet again you have failed to make any distinction whatsoever between the stage where independence is possible medically and the actual birth.

So your own reasoning of "anyone can provide" means you support termination up to independently viable, not birth.

No, because unlike you, I see a difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing the foetus. A pregnancy may be terminated early if the woman encounters medical complications. That does not mean that the foetus will be killed.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:22am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

While it was refreshing to read the opposing arguement made in a clear and consise manner, I most definitely disagree. Nobody else's right should trump the right somebody has over their own body. That is what is so wrong with this law. As a woman, I am responsible for my body and I will do with it whatever I wish.

"arguement made in a clear and consise manner"??? Oh the irony of your attempted barb!
As has been pointed out, genetically, the foetus (and umbilical etc) are neither mother nor father. It is not part of the woman's body, it's in it. You could just as easily compare the duty of care a mother has to born children to that she has to a foetus/child as yet unborn.
Once again the artificial distinction between children who can live independently after and before birth makes no sense.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:24am

SW wrote: »

That doesn't contract what I posted, so I'm not sure how you view what I posted as nonsense.

No, because unlike you, I see a difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing the foetus. A pregnancy may be terminated early if the woman encounters medical complications. That does not mean that the foetus will be killed.

An early termination of pregnancy without killing the foetus... now that biology you will have to explain.

rainbow kirby · 06-05-2015 9:25am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

An early termination of pregnancy without killing the foetus... now that biology you will have to explain.

Pre-term Caesarean section. Ends the pregnancy and results in a live baby.

06-05-2015 9:25am

We all understand that pregnancies can be terminated and a live birth still occurs right?
(as was the case which was widely reported last year )

Seems like a refresher might be necessary.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:27am

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pre-term Caesarean section. Ends the pregnancy and results in a live baby.

How "early" is that? You're saying "early" as in earlier than the birth, not "early" in the pregnancy?

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:29am

Deleted User wrote: »

We all understand that pregnancies can be terminated and a live birth still occurs right?
(as was the case which was widely reported last year )

Seems like a refresher might be necessary.

So what SW was failing to say was "pre-term" when they erroneously used "early".
Thanks for correcting SW and giving SW that refresher.

rainbow kirby · 06-05-2015 9:29am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How "early" is that? You're saying "early" as in earlier than the birth, not "early" in the pregnancy?

Pre-term can be any time between viability and 37 weeks.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:32am

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pre-term Caesarean section. Ends the pregnancy and results in a live baby.

"pre-term" and "early" are now interchangeable? They're not you know.
Wasn't there no end of whining earlier when I used terminology that everybody understood? Let me guess, now everybody will pretend "pre-term" means "early" when it quite clearly doesn't.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:33am

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pre-term can be any time between viability and 37 weeks.

So? The word was "early". Do you want to pretend "early termination of pregnancy" means any time up to 37 weeks?
Of course you know it doesn't, but go on, fire away.

06-05-2015 9:35am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I must mean then that it would be OK to terminate on the day of delivery. Why then would it be immoral to kill the baby seconds after giving birth when it is still entirely dependent on the mother for survival?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

An early termination of pregnancy without killing the foetus... now that biology you will have to explain.

Deleted User wrote: »

We all understand that pregnancies can be terminated and a live birth still occurs right?
(as was the case which was widely reported last year )

Seems like a refresher might be necessary.

.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 06-05-2015 9:36am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"arguement made in a clear and consise manner"??? Oh the irony of your attempted barb!
As has been pointed out, genetically, the foetus (and umbilical etc) are neither mother nor father. It is not part of the woman's body, it's in it. You could just as easily compare the duty of care a mother has to born children to that she has to a foetus/child as yet unborn.
Once again the artificial distinction between children who can live independently after and before birth makes no sense.

Yes it's IN her body and attached to her body via a cord, thus being part of her. And if she does not want something in her body she has a right to remove it.

Huntergonzo · 06-05-2015 9:42am

I'm pro-choice, I can't understand how in the 21st century we're still forcing women into having children. A fetus is not a human being, it can't survive independent of its mother and therefore shouldn't recieve equal rights, incredibly at the moment it has even more rights than its mother.

Also for consistency sake if you believe abortion is murder then surely you must believe a miscarriage is man slaughter. Also the pill and condoms etc are a definite no no because they're also preventing life.

Finally just something I find interesting, why do people who are against abortion call themselves 'pro-life', surely if I'm pro-choice you're anti-choice. Ps I'm also pro-life, I think most people are, we'd all going around killing ourselves if we were 'anti-life'.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

.

Quoting the same already refuted argument multiple times doesn't make it correct.
"early termination" and "pre-term termination" are not interchangeable terms.
As predicted people will pretend they are of course.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:46am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yes it's IN her body and attached to her body via a cord, thus being part of her. And if she does not want something in her body she has a right to remove it.

Then you will have to explain why supporting a foetus/child that is capable of independent life outside the womb is mandatory one minute after birth but you think it is OK to kill it one minute before birth.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 06-05-2015 9:47am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then you will have to explain why supporting a foetus/child that is capable of independent life outside the womb is mandatory one minute after birth but you think it is OK to kill it one minute before birth.

Can you please show me exactly where I stated I suggest/approve killing a child one minute before its birth? Thanks.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:47am

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm pro-choice, I can't understand how in the 21st century we're still forcing women into having children. A fetus is not a human being, it can't survive independent of its mother and therefore shouldn't recieve equal rights, incredibly at the moment it has even more rights than its mother.

It can survive without the mother a significant time before the normal delivery day. This is a simple fact, whatever stage you are deciding yourself is OK to abort.

Delirium · 06-05-2015 9:49am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

An early termination of pregnancy without killing the foetus... now that biology you will have to explain.

SW wrote: »

That doesn't contract what I posted, so I'm not sure how you view what I posted as nonsense.

No, because unlike you, I see a difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing the foetus. A pregnancy may be terminated early if the woman encounters medical complications. That does not mean that the foetus will be killed.

A woman is at 8 months (which is at something like 95% viability outside the womb) and hits complications.

The medical team terminate the pregnancy (a) early, (b) on-time or (c) late?

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:49am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Can you please show me exactly where I stated I suggest/approve killing a child one minute before its birth? Thanks.

No problem.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And if she does not want something in her body she has a right to remove it.

Are you requesting to add a qualifier to that statement?

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:51am

SW wrote: »

A woman is at 8 months (which is at something like 95% viability outside the womb) and hits complications.

The medical team terminate the pregnancy (a) early, (b) on-time or (c) late?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/586663
These are commonly accepted definitions. If you are proposing we change them, could you notify the other people in this thread, and the wider medical community, of these redefinitions in advance?

Delirium · 06-05-2015 9:55am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/586663
These are commonly accepted definitions. If you are proposing we change them, could you notify the other people in this thread, and the wider medical community, of these redefinitions in advance?

the link is behind a paywall.

I presume you're alluding to the terms, early-term, late-term abortion etc.

I never used the term "early-term".

I said the the pregnancy would be terminated early.

Early = happening or done before the usual or expected time.

I do hope that clears up your confusion.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 9:56am

SW wrote: »

the link is behind a paywall.

I presume you're alluding to the terms, early-term, late-term abortion etc.

I never used the term "early-term".

I said the the pregnancy would be terminated early.

Early = happening or done before the usual or expected time.

I do hope that clears up your confusion.

Your backtracking clears up my confusion at your indecipherable post, yes.
I never claimed you said "early-term". Nice try.
You used the word "early", which is different from "pre-term". I hope that gives you the correct terminology should you wish to use it in future.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=%22early+termination+of+pregnancy%22
Any one of the matches can educate you here.

Huntergonzo · 06-05-2015 9:59am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It can survive without the mother a significant time before the normal delivery day. This is a simple fact, whatever stage you are deciding yourself is OK to abort.

No fetus could survive if removed during the first trimester which from what I've heard and read is when the majority of abortions are performed.

Now I don't have the medical knowledge to say up until what week and abortion of choice should be permitted, in Britain it seems to be up to 24 weeks, so I'll take that. But again ideally most chosen abortions should take place within the first trimester and I've heard they do.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 10:01am

Huntergonzo wrote: »

No fetus could survive if removed during the first trimester which from what I've heard and read is when the majority of abortions are performed.

Now I don't have the medical knowledge to say up until what week and abortion of choice should be permitted, in Britain it seems to be up to 24 weeks, so I'll take that. But again ideally most chosen abortions should take place within the first trimester and I've heard they do.

Most of them do, nobody has denied that. But that isn't what you said.

Huntergonzo · 06-05-2015 10:02am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Most of them do, nobody has denied that. But that isn't what you said.

What did I say? Be exact, not creative.

Delirium · 06-05-2015 10:07am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Your backtracking clears up my confusion at your indecipherable post, yes.
I never claimed you said "early-term". Nice try.
You used the word "early", which is different from "pre-term". I hope that gives you the correct terminology should you wish to use it in future.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=%22early+termination+of+pregnancy%22
Any one of the matches can educate you here.

I see you're still misrepresenting my use "terminated early" as "early termination" (which your link actually confirms).

We're going around in circles, so I'd ask you to discontinue this misrepresentation please.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 10:08am

Huntergonzo wrote: »

What did I say? Be exact, not creative.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

A fetus is not a human being, it can't survive independent of its mother

It obviously can. This is a simple fact.

Dan_Solo · 06-05-2015 10:10am

SW wrote: »

I see you're still misrepresenting my use "terminated early" as "early termination" (which your link actually confirms).

We're going around in circles, so I'd ask you to discontinue this misrepresentation please.

I will discontinue mentioning your erroneous use of "early" and "pre-term" interchangeably and ask which one you really mean in future.

Abortion Discussion

Comments