Abortion Discussion

Brian Shanahan · 16-08-2013 5:02pm

Nodin wrote: »

...good jaysus....

Ah now, no need to take the name of other people's gods in vain.

But the story is a large reason for my pro-choice stand. The other being that, as a moral being, I cannot force my beliefs on others, so therefore am generally pro-choice in most matters (unless it can be shown that the choice is unnecessarily injurious to society, harms those who can't make the choice in an informed maner, or hurts any of the participants too severely).

Bannasidhe · 16-08-2013 5:10pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

a) Could you explain how a foetus isn't "alive".
b) Surely you understand that a foetus is innocent and the people receiving any death penalty would have considered to have been proven guilty of a heinous crime.

a)Cows are 'alive' - do you eat meat?
People who are brain dead are 'alive' - yet the law allows that they no longer be fed and they to starve to death on the grounds that lack of brain activity means their 'life' has ended even if they are technically 'alive'.

b) If every human life is unique and should be preserved - there is no justification for the death penalty.

They may have been 'considered' guilty - that is not the same as 'being' guilty. There have been many miscarriages of justice and there remain many on Death Row whose convictions are considered unsound.

For anyone who can access JSTOR this makes somber reading http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/hugobedaumichaleredelet.pdf

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:11pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Actually that's not quite true.

Firstly, out of the 2766 abortions performed past week 20 in the UK in 2010, 67% were surgical and 33% medical, so no, a surgical abortion does not have to be carried out.

Secondly, of the surgical abortions approximately two thirds or 44% of the total used D&E. The other third or 24% of the total used feticide with surgical evacuation.

Thirdly, while D&E is the dominant procedure from 15-19 weeks (accounting for 74% of all abortions), its use wanes with increasing gestation. In fact, the reason it decreases with increasing gestation is due to the increasing toughness of foetal tissue after 20 weeks, making a post 20 week D&E very difficult and risky.

Haskell, Martin. "Dilation and extraction for late second trimester abortion." National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, Dallas, Texas. 1992. (Sorry, link broken)

Finally, the procedure is typically accompanied by an anaesthetic and/or lethal injection prior to the surgical extraction, which you didn't feel was necessary to mention. It's not as if the doctor just starts going in blindly pulling pieces of the foetus apart. It's a procedure carried out by trained professionals, its not a five year old with a bucket of KFC.

I believe by throwing around various facts and figures you are missing the point. A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable. Paedophilia doesn't become any more acceptable if only 1% of adults are paedophiles and of these child rapes only 5% involves violence.

old hippy · 16-08-2013 5:18pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe by throwing around various facts and figures you are missing the point. A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable. Paedophilia doesn't become any more acceptable if only 1% of adults are paedophiles and of these child rapes only 5% involves violence.

I don't understand. How is paedophilia relevant to a surgical procedure?

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:18pm

old hippy wrote: »

I do believe the good doctor emma already answered a)

Pre-birth, a fetus is not an independently-living and breathing being.

So conjoined twins aren't alive then? What are they so?

old hippy · 16-08-2013 5:21pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So conjoined twins aren't alive then? What are they so?

Conjoined twins are conjoined twins. I believe we're talking about foetuses?

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:22pm

old hippy wrote: »

Conjoined twins are conjoined twins. I believe we're talking about foetuses?

:rolleyes:
By YOUR defintiion some conjoined twins arent' in fact "alive". If they are not alive and clearly not dead either what state are they in?

old hippy · 16-08-2013 5:24pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:rolleyes:
By YOUR defintiion some conjoined twins arent' in fact "alive". If they are not alive and clearly not dead either what state are they in?

The good doctor said Pre birth. Please read the actual post. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:28pm

old hippy wrote: »

The good doctor said Pre birth. Please read the actual post. :rolleyes:

I did. This according to you this is the reason a foetus isn't "alive".

"is not an independently-living and breathing being."

Some conjoined twins - or more precisely each of the two individuals joined together - ... "is not an independently-living and breathing being.".

So, by your definition some conjoined twins aren't alive. So please tell me wtf they are if they aren't "alive" and clearly aren't dead either.

old hippy · 16-08-2013 5:30pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I did. This according to you is the reason a foetus isn't "alive".

"is not an independently-living and breathing being."

Some conjoined twins - or more precisely each of the two individuals joined together - ... "is not an independently-living and breathing being.".

So, by your definition some conjoined twins aren't alive. So please tell me wtf they are if they aren't "alive" and clearly aren't dead either.

Pre birth, 2 conjoined foetuses aren't "alive".

Can't make it any simpler for you.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:31pm

old hippy wrote: »

Pre birth, 2 conjoined foetuses aren't "alive".

Can't make it any simpler for you.

Where have I said anything about the conjoined twins being foetuses? They are 20 years old- Can't make this any easier for you.

Mardy Bum · 16-08-2013 5:39pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe by throwing around various facts and figures you are missing the point. A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable. Paedophilia doesn't become any more acceptable if only 1% of adults are paedophiles and of these child rapes only 5% involves violence.

Pesky facts. What need is less facts and more emotional manipulation as we all live in a black and white world.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:44pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Pesky facts. What need is less facts and more emotional manipulation as we all live in a black and white world.

How about responding to this section?

A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable.

gaynorvader · 16-08-2013 5:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I did. This according to you this is the reason a foetus isn't "alive".

"is not an independently-living and breathing being."

Some conjoined twins - or more precisely each of the two individuals joined together - ... "is not an independently-living and breathing being.".

So, by your definition some conjoined twins aren't alive. So please tell me wtf they are if they aren't "alive" and clearly aren't dead either.

Also covers tumours. Can we draw lines of distinction between foetuses, conjoined twins and tumours?

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 5:54pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Thank you. Pretty despicable on the part of the doctors at those clinics. 5% is a pretty low number, hopefully now lower as these doctors are punished and scrutiny is reinforced. Without the evidence though, you had made it sound like a common, widespread problem the government were turning a blind eye to (at least to me), which is not the case.

Where have you got 5% from?

Of more than 250 clinics investigated so far, it is thought 15% to 20% may be breaking the law.

up to 20% of UK abortion clinics pre-signing abortion approval forms isn't widespread to you?

Bannasidhe · 16-08-2013 5:55pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How about responding to this section?

A single case of denying a woman life saving treatment for cancer in order to protect a non-sentient clump of cells is deplorable.

A single case of medical staff waiting to act until there is a 51% chance a woman will die in order to protect a non-sentient clump of cells is deplorable.

The death of one woman due to a attempt at a wire hanger abortion is deplorable.

Do those women's lives not matter to you?

Mardy Bum · 16-08-2013 5:57pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How about responding to this section?

On a deplorable scale I would list quite a bit further down the scale as anaesthetic is present and the fetus has no conception of self. Death by starvation, disease, murder would be much higher on my deplorable scale. Where are they on yours? Life is not black and white.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 6:03pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

On a deplorable scale I would list quite a bit further down the scale as anaesthetic is present and the fetus has no conception of self. Death by starvation, disease, murder would be much higher on my deplorable scale. Where are they on yours? Life is not black and white.

And an newborn baby has no conception of self either. Violently killing newborn babies (under anasthetic of course!) is equally way down your list I presume?

Mardy Bum · 16-08-2013 6:13pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And an newborn baby has no conception of self either. Violently killing newborn babies (under anasthetic of course!) is equally way down your list I presume?

They are independent to the woman/mother so it is not like for like.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 6:17pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

They are independent to the woman/mother so it is not like for like.

Right, and 23 week + foetuses which are aborted can also be independent to the mother - as I've already shown - which is what I meant by "viable". So this is like for like.

With that clarification in mind, I'll repeat:

A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 6:19pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A single case of denying a woman life saving treatment for cancer in order to protect a non-sentient clump of cells is deplorable.

A single case of medical staff waiting to act until there is a 51% chance a woman will die in order to protect a non-sentient clump of cells is deplorable.

The death of one woman due to a attempt at a wire hanger abortion is deplorable.

Do those women's lives not matter to you?

Yes to all. Your turn:

A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable.

Mardy Bum · 16-08-2013 6:24pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, and 23 week + foetuses which are aborted can also be independent to the mother - as I've already shown - which is what I meant by "viable". So this is like for like.

With that clarification in mind, I'll repeat:

You have shown one case and dismissed all the other facts and figures that have been presented. Read oldnrnwiser's posts again I don't see the need in repeating them. If a woman is in danger her bodily autonomy is paramount. Ultimately it is the woman's choice.

Bannasidhe · 16-08-2013 6:28pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes to all. Your turn:

Given that the fetus is already dead by the time this 'crushing and ripping' that you are fixated upon to the point of fetishising - no.

I put the already born first every time.

Now - unless I misunderstood, you think those 3 things I referred to are deplorable - so what is your solution?

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 6:31pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You have shown one case and dismissed all the other facts and figures that have been presented. Read oldnrnwiser's posts again I don't see the need in repeating them. If a woman is in danger her bodily autonomy is paramount. Ultimately it is the woman's choice.

Wait a second...

Why does everyone do this????

NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE MOTHER BEING IN ANY DANGER!!!

Our conversation is an extension on oldernwiser's posts. He has put forward evidence that showed that D&E abortions in the UK of potentially viable foetus are proportionally small though still quite large in number.

I have then put it to you that one is too many. What is your response?

Nodin · 16-08-2013 6:35pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe by throwing around various facts and figures you are missing the point. A single case of crushing and ripping a viable baby to death is beyond deplorable. Paedophilia doesn't become any more acceptable if only 1% of adults are paedophiles and of these child rapes only 5% involves violence.

Good oul emotive babble. Makes you feel good, makes them feel bad. Yay for emotive babble.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 6:35pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that the fetus is already dead by the time this 'crushing and ripping' that you are fixated upon to the point of fetishising - no.

I put the already born first every time.

Now - unless I misunderstood, you think those 3 things I referred to are deplorable - so what is your solution?

The foetus is not always "already dead", so my point still stands.

If you have more accurate terms for crushing a skull than "crushing" or more appropriate terms for tearing away body parts with a jagged forceps than tearing then share them.

Nodin · 16-08-2013 6:40pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The foetus is not always "already dead", so my point still stands.

If you have more accurate terms for crushing a skull than "crushing" or more appropriate terms for tearing away body parts with a jagged forceps than tearing then share them.

Mardy Bum · 16-08-2013 6:51pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wait a second...

Why does everyone do this????

NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE MOTHER BEING IN ANY DANGER!!!

Our conversation is an extension on oldernwiser's posts. He has put forward evidence that showed that D&E abortions in the UK of potentially viable foetus are proportionally small though still quite large in number.

I have then put it to you that one is too many. What is your response?

As Bannisdhe has said the fetus is dead.

The limit is 24 weeks in Britain and you have given one example of a child being viable at 23. The number of abortions that take place after 22 weeks is tiny. The number of fetuses viable after 23 is miniscule. Statistically the number of fetuses aborted that would be viable is tiny.

Why exactly are you infatuated by late term abortions? Do you have the same opinion concerning early abortions or are you trying to do a Youth Defence on it?

DaisyPro38 · 16-08-2013 6:52pm

I wish it wasn't always men discussing this women's issue. Do not forget that women do not take abortion lightly; it is a very difficult decision for anyone, but desperate times require desperate measures. The previous posts going into such detail, building a theoretical framework, show little understanding of this matter.

Mother of four, who had an abortion at age 22, which was a very difficult decision to make but was never regretted.

Bannasidhe · 16-08-2013 7:16pm

DaisyPro38 wrote: »

I wish it wasn't always men discussing this women's issue. Do not forget that women do not take abortion lightly; it is a very difficult decision for anyone, but desperate times require desperate measures. The previous posts going into such detail, building a theoretical framework, show little understanding of this matter.

Mother of four, who had an abortion at age 22, which was a very difficult decision to make but was never regretted.

I agree.

I have to admit, if I am being honest, that is does, at times, irritate the absolute **** out of me that the voices most often heard in this debate are from those who will never actually be pregnant, never mind have a crises pregnancy, but feel qualified to talk about what should and should not be legal for those who do actually get pregnant to do with their own bloody bodies.:mad:

Plus all of this theorising disguises that we are talking about real life already here for at least a decade and a bit women and their real life crises.

end rant/.

Abortion Discussion

Comments