Abortion Discussion

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Stop leaving such big holes in your posts then!

And my personal views on the topic are irrelevant, you are trying to argue a point using false, misleading or misunderstood information. Every time that someone points that out you either dodge, avoid or just get really snarky.

I am not trying to protect or defend abortion, I am not putting forward an argument for abortion.

That's laughable. You employ the tactic of trying to pick an unrelated hole in a link thus supposedly discrediting the entire link.

And it's telling that you only attempt to contradict pro-life posts... as is your reluctance to state what is obvious to everybody. Do you really believe that readers are that naive?

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's laughable. You employ the tactic of trying to pick an unrelated hole in a link thus supposedly discrediting the entire link.

And it's telling that you only attempt to contradict pro-life posts... as is your reluctance to state what is obvious to everybody. Do you really believe that readers are that naive?

It's telling that the pro-life posts are the ones so easily discredited.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's laughable. You employ the tactic of trying to pick an unrelated hole in a link thus supposedly discrediting the entire link.

And it's telling that you only attempt to contradict pro-life posts... as is your reluctance to state what is obvious to everybody. Do you really believe that readers are that naive?

No, the point which you said that the link supported was absolutely unsupported by the link.

You were 'fact checked', and the point disproved.

The poster you're responding to went to some effort in dissecting the report and the claims from the partisan link you posted.

Two Sheds

Kev W wrote: »

It's telling that the pro-life posts are the ones so easily discredited.

Let's see all you supporters of abortion justify and defend abortion practices.

Has your conscience got your tongue?

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

Let's see all you supporters of abortion justify and defend abortion practices.

Has your conscience got your tongue?

Which specific abortion practices would you like me specifically to justify and defend?

keep in mind I'm not going to write you a novel here.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's laughable. You employ the tactic of trying to pick an unrelated hole in a link thus supposedly discrediting the entire link.

And it's telling that you only attempt to contradict pro-life posts... as is your reluctance to state what is obvious to everybody. Do you really believe that readers are that naive?

Sorry, did I not already address this? You posted an article with the headline "92% of Babies With Down Syndrome in England Are Killed in Abortions" that went into great detail about how a particular report showed that about half of abortions of foetuses with down syndrome were not reported correctly. I addressed this point, quite thoroughly and using the information in the report itself as well as many others, and then you claimed that you only were talking about 3 words in the article. 3 words that, might I add, were not supported by any other information in the article or the report that it referenced.

Do you think that people won't actually read the links that you post? Do you expect all of us to succumb to bad evidence like you so easily do?

And your obsession with what my personal views on the topic is irrelevant. I am not making a pro-abortion or pro-choice argument. You are trying to make the pro-life argument and I am simply pointing out your failure to do so.

Two Sheds

Kev W wrote: »

Which specific abortion practices would you like me specifically to justify and defend?

keep in mind I'm not going to write you a novel here.

I presumed you supported them all. Maybe you could tell us which practices you don't support ... and why.

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

Which specific abortion practices would you like me specifically to justify and defend?

keep in mind I'm not going to write you a novel here.

Two Sheds wrote: »

I presumed you supported them all. Maybe you could tell us which practices you don't support ... and why.

Typical. I voluntarily give you the opportunity to ask me to defend any abortion practice of your choosing and you instead decide that I must do the opposite.

I'm not playing that game.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

I presumed you supported them all. Maybe you could tell us which practices you don't support ... and why.

I support access to abortion in the same way as I support access to amputation.

If the option needs to be exercised, I'd like it to be available. If it is to be available, I'd like the best services possible to be available.

By supporting amputation being an option in Irish Medicine, I am not pushing for amputations to become common. I would be very happy for not a single amputation to take place in a calendar year.

I am also more than happy to leave the mechanics of the procedure to those that are best placed to decide on them; that is the medical professional taking care of the patient involved.

Kev W

Deleted User wrote: »

I support access to abortion in the same way as I support access to amputation.

If the option needs to be exercised, I'd like it to be available. If it is to be available, I'd like the best services possible to be available.

By supporting amputation being an option in Irish Medicine, I am not pushing for amputations to become common. I would be very happy for not a single amputation to take place in a calendar year.

I am also more than happy to leave the mechanics of the procedure to those that are best placed to decide on them; that is the medical professional taking care of the patient involved.

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

YOU MONSTER!

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.