Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion

Options
1…4748505253…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Not allowed to murder the child because it has a right to life that supercedes the woman's right to bodily integrity.

    So what... you imprison a woman to ensure she doesn't have an abortion?

    If you had a fraction of the compassion for women that you claim you have for non-sentient beings, you would see how utterly disgusting the notion of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is.


  • Options
    #1473
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Hi folks,

    I know these ethical discussions can be heated but please avoid bringing personal poster's character into the firing line.


  • Options
    #1474
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    koth wrote: »
    a lot of assumptions there.

    How so?

    He describes the woman as his friend. He obviously slept with her. He obviously got her pregnant. And he himself says that they had the baby aborted because it didn't suit (or words to that effect).


  • Options
    #1475
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    <SNIP>
    <SNIP>

    There was no cajoling done. I'm not going into more detail because she may well read boards and what was done was not something done lightly and to be frank, <SNIP>

    You mentioned earlier that's it's up to the likes of yourself to defend clumps of cells/embryos/non humans etc.

    Just how do you plan to do that?<SNIP>


  • Options
    #1476
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Not allowed to murder the child because it has a right to life that supercedes the woman's right to bodily integrity.

    Yes, you keep saying this.

    And several people have asked you for the justification.

    Humour us. It's clearly not so obvious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    old hippy wrote: »
    <SNIP>

    There was no cajoling done. I'm not going into more detail because she may well read boards and what was done was not something done lightly and to be frank, <SNIP>

    You mentioned earlier that's it's up to the likes of yourself to defend clumps of cells/embryos/non humans etc.

    Just how do you plan to do that?<SNIP>

    It's a mark of a throwaway society...we're now extending that to humans.

    In my view, you both "did the crime" so you should have both "done the time". You should have had the baby and put it up for adoption.
    <SNIP>
    Abortion as a method of contraception is vile in my view.

    Gas thing is that I'm not religious or prudish at all.


  • Options
    #1478
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Gas thing is that I'm not religious or prudish at all.

    Saying that doesn't really make it true.


  • Options
    #1479
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Yes, you keep saying this.

    And several people have asked you for the justification.

    Humour us. It's clearly not so obvious.

    If you need clarification on why the right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity...well, I worry for you


  • Options
    #1480
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    Sarky wrote: »
    Saying that doesn't really make it true.

    It is true.

    Does opposing abortion in all but the most extreme cases make one a card carrying member of Opus Dei?


  • Options
    #1481
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    If you need clarification on why the right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity...well, I worry for you

    Maybe try answering the question?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    How so?
    <SNIP>

    You don't have all the facts of our situation and yet you sit in judgement, tossing about highly emotive words and generally avoiding the hard truths.

    There's no such thing as lifestyle abortions or any of that bobbins. Sometimes, some people have to make hard choices and that's the way it goes. It's part and parcel of the world and era we find ourselves in. You may not like it but thankfully, you don't control women or subjugate them. Not for want of trying, mind.

    I'm going to sign off for now as I'm really feeling a bit hot under the collar and fear I may say something I regret.

    Good vibes one and all.


  • Options
    #1483
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    If you need clarification on why the right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity...well, I worry for you

    This is a thread discussing abortion so clarification and development on philosophies of rights is expected. Personal remarks like the above "I worry for you" are unwelcome. If you are not capable of discussing your opinion in a civil manner then please refrain from posting here.


  • Options
    #1484
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    That is a separate issue and a discussion for another day.

    But you are equating abortions with murder. I am asking why you think imprisonment would be a good punishment for that.


  • Options
    #1485
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    In my view, you both "did the crime" so you should have both "done the time". You should have had the baby and put it up for adoption.

    Why?

    <SNIP>


  • Options
    #1486
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    iwantmydinner wrote: »
    Maybe try answering the question?

    Because one's a matter of life and death and the other isn't...


  • Options
    #1487
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Because one's a matter of life and death and the other isn't...

    But how can any right of a foetus trump a right as important as the right to bodily autonomy of an adult woman? I don't understand this. How come a foetus is more important than the adult woman?


  • Options
    #1488
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    If you need clarification on why the right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity...well, I worry for you

    That's not an answer.

    You don't think the right to life supersedes the right to bodily integrity in the case of organ donation. Why does the right to life supersede the right to bodily integrity in the case of pregnancy?


  • Options
    #1489
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jack Kyle wrote: »

    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.

    Who, as my mother would say, died and made you god?

    Does your duty as defender of human lives extend to the already born?

    If the 15 year old X victim had not miscarried and had an abortion would your 'defense' of her life have her in jail for murder?

    No. It is not up to you. It is none of your business what I, or any other woman, choose to do with our own bodies just like it is none of mine what you do with yours.

    <SNIP>


  • Options
    #1490
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    doctoremma wrote: »
    That's not an answer.

    You don't think the right to life supersedes the right to bodily integrity in the case of organ donation. Why does the right to life supersede the right to bodily integrity in the case of pregnancy?

    The comparison is not valid (as I've said before and won't say again).

    An organ donation that hasn't occurred isn't akin to a pregnancy as no dependent relationship exists.

    However, the opposite might hold true...an abortion IS akin to an attempt to take a donated organ back. Both would be wrong.


  • Options
    #1491
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    The comparison is not valid (as I've said before and won't say again).

    An organ donation that hasn't occurred isn't akin to a pregnancy as no dependent relationship exists.

    However, the opposite might hold true...an abortion IS akin to an attempt to take a donated organ back. Both would be wrong.

    Why is it not valid if we have a duty to defend human life?

    Why would it be valid to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy but then fail to force the same woman to donate an organ (say the baby needs a liver transplant and the mother is an exact match) to her new born baby to save it's life?

    What exactly is the difference?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    An organ donation that hasn't occurred isn't akin to a pregnancy as no dependent relationship exists.

    OK.

    So do I understand you to be saying that your inconsistent position on the ranking of the right to life .v. the right to bodily autonomy is based on status of a dependent relationship between the two parties?

    Why? Genuine question. Why does the fact that one person's right to life is entirely dependent on another person negate the latter's right to bodily autonomy?

    Do you view a woman who has consented to sex as de facto consenting to pregnancy and therefore implicitly forfeiting her right to bodily autonomy if such a pregnancy should arise?


  • Options
    #1493
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Who, as my mother would say, died and made you god?

    Does your duty as defender of human lives extend to the already born?

    If the 15 year old X victim had not miscarried and had an abortion would your 'defense' of her life have her in jail for murder?

    No. It is not up to you. It is none of your business what I, or any other woman, choose to do with our own bodies just like it is none of mine what you do with yours.

    <SNIP>

    It is when a woman selfishly place your rights above the right to life of the child.

    That's when society must intervene.

    The X case was horrific. However, I don't see how abortion was a solution. The unborn child was as innocent as the girl. In my view, attempts should have been made to educate the girl and her family regarding the immorality of abortion. And if I'm brutally honest, I wouldn't be against restraining and sedating a pregnant woman that's seeking an abortion. As with bodily integrity, an individual's right to freedom does not supercede a child's right to life.


  • Options
    #1494
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    And if I'm brutally honest, I wouldn't be against restraining and sedating a pregnant woman that's seeking an abortion. As with bodily integrity, an individual's right to freedom does not supercede a child's right to life.

    Fark me. Quoted in case of ninja edit....

    And again, you keep saying these things as if they are somehow obvious.


  • Options
    #1495
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    It is when a woman selfishly place your rights above the right to life of the child.

    That's when society must intervene.

    The X case was horrific. However, I don't see how abortion was a solution. The unborn child was as innocent as the girl. In my view, attempts should have been made to educate the girl and her family regarding the immorality of abortion. And if I'm brutally honest, I wouldn't be against restraining and sedating a pregnant woman that's seeking an abortion. As with bodily integrity, an individual's right to freedom does not supercede a child's right to life.

    mother-of-god.jpg


  • Options
    #1496
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Why is it not valid if we have a duty to defend human life?

    Why would it be valid to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy but then fail to force the same woman to donate an organ (say the baby needs a liver transplant and the mother is an exact match) to her new born baby to save it's life?

    What exactly is the difference?

    Because direct dependence already exists.

    Me not jumping into a wild river to save you is a world away from me kicking you off my raft and into the wild river.


  • Options
    #1497
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    The unborn child has a right to life.

    Some of you seem to have an issue with that.

    That child's life supercedes a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit.

    Regarding suicidal woman, I would advocate counselling of course. But if all else failed, I would medicate them and force them to carry the child full term.

    You'd swear I was advocating genocide.

    The pro-choice lobby are the ones advocating infanticide.


  • Options
    #1498
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Because direct dependence already exists.

    Me not jumping into a wild river to save you is a world away from me kicking you off my raft and into the wild river.

    So you don't care if the new born baby dies but are willing to advocate 'restraining and sedating a pregnant woman' to 'save' the unborn?

    Do you not see a contradiction in your position?


  • Options
    #1499
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Because direct dependence already exists.

    Me not jumping into a wild river to save you is a world away from me kicking you off my raft and into the wild river.

    And yet you would add a third person to this scenario, someone to give the bankside observer a hefty shove in....


  • Options
    #1500
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Do you have an answer for this?
    iwantmydinner wrote: »
    But how can any right of a foetus trump a right as important as the right to bodily autonomy of an adult woman? I don't understand this. How come a foetus is more important than the adult woman?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    The unborn child has a right to life.

    Some of you seem to have an issue with that.

    That child's life supercedes a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit.

    Regarding suicidal woman, I would advocate counselling of course. But if all else failed, I would medicate them and force them to carry the child full term.

    You'd swear I was advocating genocide.

    The pro-choice lobby are the ones advocating infanticide.

    While you are only advocating imprisoning and sedating women against their will in order to force them to carry pregnancies to term against their will.

    You would forceably sedate women and keep them in a stupor to 'save' the unborn - have you considered the effects of such medication on a fetus or doesn't that matter as long as it is eventually born?

    You claim to be the defender of life while advocating such atrocities be carried out on women. <SNIP>
    You really cannot claim to be holding the moral high ground.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement