Abortion Discussion

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

These are classic pro choice tactics.

Attempt to derail the argument with ludicrous analogies and examples.

No I do not believe in the death penalty.

Seriously, who's trying to derail anything here?

We're asking logical follow-up questions to your posts.

There's nothing ludicrous about asking you for your position on whether women who obtain abortions should face the death penalty. It's the penalty for being found guilty of murder in a hell of a lot of places.

Jack Kyle

swampgas wrote: »

Says you.

Murder is not a fact, and never has been: it is a subjective ethical/moral/legal judgement.

Is a soldier killing another soldier in battle murder? Some would say yes.
Is the state hanging a criminal murder? Some would say yes.
Is killing animals murder (as in "meat is murder")? Some would say yes.
Is reducing foreign aid to developing countries murder? It could be argued that it might be, if it leads to higher infant mortality.
Is cutting ambulance services to rural areas murder? If not, why not?

All are debatable to some extent, as they involve subjective human values.

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts: and it is not an agreed fact that abortion is murder.

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

Mardy Bum

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

Abstract thought is never welcomed it seems. Funny that.

An embryo is now the equivalent of a fully formed person?

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

This presupposes an equality between foetus and adult. Cack, really.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

In every single case? Are there any exceptions to that?

Would you say that a woman facing certain severe injury (but not death) as a result of carrying a pregnancy to term has to accept that injury, in all circumstances, in order to bring that pregnancy to term?

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

Said the man who insists women who have abortions should face the same legal penalties assigned to premeditated murder.

Why is it 'different' when a solider kills another solider?
Is it also 'different' if a solider kills a civilian?
What if that civilian is a new born baby?
What if that civilian is a pregnant women?

So a pregnant women (she is not a 'mother' until a child is actually born by the way) has 'rights' but only until those 'rights' cease to exist because another now has the 'rights' to her body...?

Speaking of 'mothers' - do you believe child benefit should be paid from the moment of implantation?

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

Actually they do. It helps illustrate that human life is valued differently depending on the situation. A citizen shooting and killing another citizen would generally be viewed as an illegal killing.

But those same two people transposed to a battlefield situation and it's unlikely the soldier who killed the other soldier would be charged with an illegal killing.

The two situations have the same outcome for the dead person but society accepts that one isn't an illegal act.

swampgas

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

You are the one throwing around words like murder, which is a word that usually applies to adults killing adults.

If you want to justify the use of the word "murder" for the killing of (say) a week old embryo then you need to explain why.

Are you still claiming it to be a fact that abortion is murder?

Or is asking you simple questions and expecting honest answers "another tactic of the pro life lobby" ?

Brian Shanahan

Jack Kyle wrote: »

These are classic anti-abortion tactics.

Attempt to derail the argument with ludicrous analogies and examples.

Fixed your post to bring it in line with your previous admission. No one on the same side as Youth Defence or Doctor killers has the right to declare their opposition liars.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The same penalty that applies for premeditated murder.

So a woman should be incarcerated because she didn't want to go through pregnancy and birth?
Would there be any situation in which you would deem a woman not wishing to carry a pregnancy to term not murder?
Do you think that a woman who wishes to have an abortion, but has not had one yet, should be incarcerated?
Should the right of Irish women to receive information on procuring a termination abroad be revoked?
Should the right of Irish women to travel for the purpose of securing a termination be revoked?
Should women returning to Ireland from procuring a termination abroad be incarcerated?

aloyisious

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, we see the pro choice lobby introducing wild and extreme analogies and examples in order to derail the argument.

Killing an unborn child and a soldier killing another soldier have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

What is your understanding, or your definition, of bodily integrity? Is it fluid enough to allow for a case in which a woman (as described in another post here) need's medical treatment to save her life, and that necessitate's an abortion to allow her life-saving operation to proceed? Does it include the woman's life?

I'm mindful that the example I put above has an automatic corollary that if the abortion is not allowed, the woman will die because her life-saving op will not happen, so consequently the feotus will also die, a problem Pro-Life people might not like to face.

In a way, we're lucky not to have some of the extreme US Pro-lifers working here, as some of them have taken the lives of doctors over there, all in the name of saving lives, without blinking or thinking they could face the death penalty for murder as a consequence.

The Black Oil

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The same penalty that applies for premeditated murder.

Ah, those 'pro women' signs are starting to make sense now...

old hippy

kylith wrote: »

So a woman should be incarcerated because she didn't want to go through pregnancy and birth?
Would there be any situation in which you would deem a woman not wishing to carry a pregnancy to term not murder?
Do you think that a woman who wishes to have an abortion, but has not had one yet, should be incarcerated?
Should the right of Irish women to receive information on procuring a termination abroad be revoked?
Should the right of Irish women to travel for the purpose of securing a termination be revoked?
Should women returning to Ireland from procuring a termination abroad be incarcerated?

Isn't that grand? Not only will we export the women to sort themselves out but we'll lock them up as well.

It's only carrying on the tradition of how we've treated women in the past, isn't it?

kylith

old hippy wrote: »

Isn't that grand? Not only will we export the women to sort themselves out but we'll lock them up as well.

It's only carrying on the tradition of how we've treated women in the past, isn't it?

Aye, a fine tradition of sexual guilt and woman blaming.

I'm just glad that I have family in the UK I can run to if I have any life-threatening complications during a future pregnancy. I am honestly nervous of the Irish prenatal healthcare system.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

Why?

And why in pregnancy but not organ donation?

doctoremma

While browsing a few pro-life sites, I came across this little gem, regarding the "treatment of an ectopic pregnancy will kill the child but because it's not directly killing the child it doesn't count as abortion" issue (my emphasis):

"The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong. However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies."

Have I misunderstood this? This fella is saying that if you can treat an ectopic pregnancy yet safely preserve the fallopian tube, then that constitutes a morally wrong action. But if you take the damaged fallopian tube out, that's acceptable? So, with the certainty that the embryo is going to die anyway, doing the least amount of damage to a woman, offering her the most progressive treatment and preserving her fertility is morally incorrect?

I know there are often accusations of "misogyny" in this debate but this is unbelievable.

Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/questions/questionsandanswers.htm

kylith

doctoremma wrote: »

While browsing a few pro-life sites, I came across this little gem, regarding the "treatment of an ectopic pregnancy will kill the child but because it's not directly killing the child it doesn't count as abortion" issue (my emphasis):

"The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong. However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies."

Have I misunderstood this? This fella is saying that if you can treat an ectopic pregnancy yet safely preserve the fallopian tube, then that constitutes a morally wrong action. But if you take the damaged fallopian tube out, that's acceptable? So, with the certainty that the embryo is going to die anyway, doing the least amount of damage to a woman, offering her the most progressive treatment and preserving her fertility is morally incorrect?

I know there are often accusations of "misogyny" in this debate but this is unbelievable.

Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/questions/questionsandanswers.htm

What else would you expect from an institution that insisted women were crippled by a symphisiotomy because a caesarean might damage their fertility?

Sarky

Probably explains their stance on warfare too. Sure, loads of people died from the explosion, but nobody was killed by having the bomb land directly on them, so it doesn't count.

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

Have I misunderstood this? This fella is saying that if you can treat an ectopic pregnancy yet safely preserve the fallopian tube, then that constitutes a morally wrong action. But if you take the damaged fallopian tube out, that's acceptable? So, with the certainty that the embryo is going to die anyway, doing the least amount of damage to a woman, offering her the most progressive treatment and preserving her fertility is morally incorrect?

No you haven't misunderstood it's possible that most Irish hospitals will be remove the fallopian tube. Though the data is unclear. A 2006 paper stated that 81% of women treated have the tube removed (salpingectomey). They conclude that there should be a greater emphasis on surgery that spares the womans chances of fertility (salpingostomy).
http://www.imj.ie/ViewArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=3020

It comes under the double effect of Catholic theology.

Btw, the information in post is thanks to Flier. I wouldn't have known this stuff otherwise. Really grateful for it.

Nodin

...I'm all confused now....

Jack Kyle

Instances like the Savita case are straightforward. She should have received an "abortion". I use the term loosely as what she needed was a necessary medical procedure.

That's akin to the example of a woman who requires life saving treatment which would kill the unborn child.

However, all of the examples provided by the pro-choice side are extreme and designed to muddy the argument.

A "normal" woman with a "normal" pregnancy who hasn't been raped and isn't dying should not be allowed to have an abortion. Such an abortion is morally wrong and is murder.

This is the scenario in almost all cases. Women that have been raped or women that are dying or women with two heads represent a tiny portion of cases yet they're the cases spouted by the pro-choice lobby.

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

...I'm all confused now....

Sorry,

I stated a belief that I didn't have the data to back-up. That most hospitals in Ireland handle an ectopic pregnancy by removing the tube without attempting repair. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case as it is in keeping with Catholic ethos. But not every hospital might stick to it. No figures in other words.

Mardy Bum

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A "normal" woman with a "normal" pregnancy who hasn't been raped and isn't dying should not be allowed to have an abortion. Such an abortion is morally wrong and is murder.

This is the scenario in almost all cases. Women that have been raped or women that are dying or women with two heads represent a tiny portion of cases yet they're the cases spouted by the pro-choice lobby.

Is an embryo the equivalent of a fully formed person?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Instances like the Savita case are straightforward. She should have received an "abortion". I use the term loosely as what she needed was a necessary medical procedure.

That's akin to the example of a woman who requires life saving treatment which would kill the unborn child.

However, all of the examples provided by the pro-choice side are extreme and designed to muddy the argument.

A "normal" woman with a "normal" pregnancy who hasn't been raped and isn't dying should not be allowed to have an abortion. Such an abortion is morally wrong and is murder.

This is the scenario in almost all cases. Women that have been raped or women that are dying or women with two heads represent a tiny portion of cases yet they're the cases spouted by the pro-choice lobby.

Why do you think that imprisonment is a good punishment for murderers?

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

Sorry,

I stated a belief that I didn't have the data to back-up. That most hospitals in Ireland handle an ectopic pregnancy by removing the tube without attempting repair. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case as it is in keeping with Catholic ethos. But not every hospital might stick to it. No figures in other words.

Soz, not you, the "This fella is saying that if you can treat an ectopic pregnancy yet safely preserve the fallopian tube, then that constitutes a morally wrong action. But if you take the damaged fallopian tube out, that's acceptable? So, with the certainty that the embryo is going to die anyway, doing the least amount of damage to a woman, offering her the most progressive treatment and preserving her fertility is morally incorrect?" thing.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Instances(........)-choice lobby.

We've heard that and addressed it. You might interrupt the spin cycle and explain how /why a foetus is to be given the same status as an adult female.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Instances like the Savita case are straightforward. She should have received an "abortion". I use the term loosely as what she needed was a necessary medical procedure.

That's akin to the example of a woman who requires life saving treatment which would kill the unborn child.

However, all of the examples provided by the pro-choice side are extreme and designed to muddy the argument.

A "normal" woman with a "normal" pregnancy who hasn't been raped and isn't dying should not be allowed to have an abortion. Such an abortion is morally wrong and is murder.

This is the scenario in almost all cases. Women that have been raped or women that are dying or women with two heads represent a tiny portion of cases yet they're the cases spouted by the pro-choice lobby.

So women should be forced to have children that they don't want and can't afford. Why? Because they shouldn't be having sex unless specifically to have babies?

And women who have been raped, while they may be in the minority, they should be forced to have their rapists child if they can't prove to your satisfaction that they were raped?

And can you answer the questions in my earlier post please:

Would there be any situation in which you would deem a woman not wishing to carry a pregnancy to term not murder?
Do you think that a woman who wishes to have an abortion, but has not had one yet, should be incarcerated?
Should the right of Irish women to receive information on procuring a termination abroad be revoked?
Should the right of Irish women to travel for the purpose of securing a termination be revoked?
Should women returning to Ireland from procuring a termination abroad be incarcerated?

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A "normal" woman with a "normal" pregnancy who hasn't been raped and isn't dying should not be allowed to have an abortion. Such an abortion is morally wrong and is murder.

It's not murder. It's a surgical procedure. And simply this; who the hell are you to decide what a woman does with her body?

My friend who terminated her/our clump of cells, is she a murderer? Should she be imprisoned?

Jack Kyle

old hippy wrote: »

It's not murder. It's a surgical procedure. And simply this; who the hell are you to decide what a woman does with her body?

My friend who terminated her/our clump of cells, is she a murderer? Should she be imprisoned?

Was it abortion as a lifestyle choice? If so, she is a murderer.

It is up to me to defend the human life inside that woman, because clearly you and her haven't the moral compass to do so.

Regarding when an unborn baby becomes equal to a "born" baby, that it a tricky question. A foetus is definitely equal. An embryo - I'm not sure. Somewhere between the two I'd say.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Instances like the Savita case are straightforward. She should have received an "abortion". I use the term loosely as what she needed was a necessary medical procedure.

That's akin to the example of a woman who requires life saving treatment which would kill the unborn child.

However, all of the examples provided by the pro-choice side are extreme and designed to muddy the argument.

A "normal" woman with a "normal" pregnancy who hasn't been raped and isn't dying should not be allowed to have an abortion. Such an abortion is morally wrong and is murder.

This is the scenario in almost all cases. Women that have been raped or women that are dying or women with two heads represent a tiny portion of cases yet they're the cases spouted by the pro-choice lobby.

Please point out the extreme scenarios you've apparently been presented with on this thread.

Oh, and, complications in pregnancy are extremely common, actually. It's certainly not the case that "almost all" pregnancies are "normal".

What about this scenario, which I posed to you in post #1416:

Would you say that a woman facing certain severe injury (but not death) as a result of carrying a pregnancy to term has to accept that injury, in all circumstances, in order to bring that pregnancy to term?

What would you say to this?