Abortion Discussion

Nodin

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.

Is there some reason you can't answer the questions put to you? Or are you just on a wind up mission?

Nodin

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.

It's neither a child or an infant.

When - in your opinion - does the clump of cells become human?

iwantmydinner

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.

Oh my god, I've just seen this.

Do you not give a sh*t about the absolute trauma this would cause the woman?? To be tied up and forced to give birth??

This cannot be real.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

None at all.

Not permitting abortion and not giving potential organ donors freedom of choice are worlds apart.

Are you seriously suggesting that a woman systematically killing the unborn child inside her is akin to you grabbing me, flinging me on the slab and removing my kidney?

Where such a dependent relationship exists, it must not be allowed to end. But if the relationship doesn't yet exist, it's different.

Having said that, any decent human being would give the child the organ.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

None at all.

Not permitting abortion and not giving potential organ donors freedom of choice are worlds apart.

Are you seriously suggesting that a woman systematically killing the unborn child inside her is akin to you grabbing me, flinging me on the slab and removing my kidney?

Where such a dependent relationship exists, it must not be allowed to end. But if the relationship doesn't yet exist, it's different.

Having said that, any decent human being would give the child the organ.

....you might do the decent thing and give me an answer....

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Do you have an answer for this?

Mother of God.

The question is ridiculous.

The issue is not who's more important, mother or unborn child. It's WHAT'S more important...the right to life of the unborn child or the mother's right to bodily integrity.

A mother's right to bodily integrity is virtually irrelevant when compared to her unborn child's right to life.

iwantmydinner

And the deep, horrific trauma your system of imprisoning pregnant women would cause?

Do you have a solution to that?

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The unborn child has a right to life. Some of you seem to have an issue with that.

I don't (although I suspect my threshold for when the right to life can be applied to the developing fetus is somewhat later than yours).

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

I disagree. And furthermore, my disagreement is entirely consistent across a whole heap of other situations.

The right to life of a person in need of a kidney does not supersede the right to bodily integrity of a suitable donor.

The right to life of thousands does not supersede the right to bodily integrity of a patient with a tumour type ripe for research.

The right to life of a crowd about to be blown up by a bomb does not supersede the right to bodily integrity of a suspect about to be tortured.

The right to life of a rapist does not supersede the right to bodily integrity of the woman being pinned to the floor.

In fact, I can't think of a situation where I believe the right to life ever supersedes the right of another's bodily integrity. Am happy to be confronted with scenarios that demonstrate the opposite, in case I am being incredibly naive here.

Now, it is possible that in many situations, people voluntarily compromise their bodily integrity in order to save a life (or many). That is their choice.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The pro-choice lobby are the ones advocating infanticide.

I suspect you're more pro-choice than you realise.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Mother of God.

The question is ridiculous.

The issue is not who's more important, mother or unborn child. It's WHAT'S more important...the right to life of the unborn child or the mother's right to bodily integrity.

A mother's right to bodily integrity is virtually irrelevant when compared to her unborn child's right to life.

You can't be serious.

Everybody, we are officially brood mares. Just so yis all know.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

None at all.

Not permitting abortion and not giving potential organ donors freedom of choice are worlds apart.

Are you seriously suggesting that a woman systematically killing the unborn child inside her is akin to you grabbing me, flinging me on the slab and removing my kidney?

Where such a dependent relationship exists, it must not be allowed to end. But if the relationship doesn't yet exist, it's different.

Having said that, any decent human being would give the child the organ.

I specifically said 'the mother of the new born' but you have chosen to ignore that.

I find it strange that you would be willing to have a woman sedated and held against her will while she is pregnant but balk at forcing the exact same woman to donate a portion of her liver to save the child she just gave birth to.


For all your talk of defending life - you appear to have placed some serious limits on what form that defense takes. Limits that mean force should be used when dealing with a fetus in utero but once it's born - then hell, let it die.

Jack Kyle

Nodin wrote: »

It's neither a child or an infant.

When - in your opinion - does the clump of cells become human?

No later than the embryonic stage, purely on the basis that it's when features such as fingers, eyes, mouth, and ears become visible.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Mother of God.

The question is ridiculous.

The issue is not who's more important, mother or unborn child. It's WHAT'S more important...the right to life of the unborn child or the mother's right to bodily integrity.

A mother's right to bodily integrity is virtually irrelevant when compared to her unborn child's right to life.

You've yet to define when it becomes a child.

When - in your opinion - does the clump of cells become human?

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh my god, I've just seen this.

Do you not give a sh*t about the absolute trauma this would cause the woman?? To be tied up and forced to give birth??

This cannot be real.

A lesser evil than the killling of an unborn child.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No later than the embryonic stage, purely on the basis that it's when features such as fingers, eyes, mouth, and ears become visible.

...a bit more specific if you would. How many weeks in?

Shouldn't you be more concerned as to when the brain forms?

Jack Kyle

Nodin wrote: »

...a bit more specific if you would. How many weeks in?

Shouldn't you be more concerned as to when the brain forms?

I'm neither a doctor nor a philosopher...I don't know.

The embryonic stage is a specific enough answer.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No later than the embryonic stage, purely on the basis that it's when features such as fingers, eyes, mouth, and ears become visible.

Oh my holy what????

So when an embryo has visible fingers, it's officially human? Are you taking the mick? Ten pages ago, we were talking about real thresholds of moral signifcance.

Not fingers though.

Bannasidhe

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh my god, I've just seen this.

Do you not give a sh*t about the absolute trauma this would cause the woman?? To be tied up and forced to give birth??

This cannot be real.

It's not the first time we have encountered this but usually they try and be a bit more subtle.

Some people really would have women locked up, sedated and used as unwilling brood mares while claiming to be defending life. The conclusion of this stance would be that they do not seem to consider the lives of women worth defending.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A lesser evil than the killling of an unborn child.

So you'd like to see a system whereby the medical profession would systematically brutalise and traumatise thousands of women per year, physically and mentally (and that's just in Ireland).

You're totally fine with that.

And you call yourself pro-life?

Really?

iwantmydinner

<SNIP>
I'm out, until this guy gives it a rest.

Bannasidhe

iwantmydinner wrote: »

So you'd like to see a system whereby the medical profession would systematically brutalise and traumatise thousands of women per year, physically and mentally (and that's just in Ireland).

You're totally fine with that.

And you call yourself pro-life?

Really?

More to the point he like to see a return to system whereby the medical profession and government would systematically brutalise and traumatise thousands of women per year, physically and mentally (and that's just in Ireland).

Jack Kyle

No.

Just not allow unborn children to be systematically killed.

I'm sorry, but given the choice between sedating and restraining a pregnant woman and killing a baby, I'd choose the former every time.

<SNIP>

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Just not allow unborn children to be systematically killed.

So if an "embryonic stage" baby is your threshold between clump of cells/human, does that mean you accept very early abortion?

swampgas

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.

(My bold.)

So, was the phrase "did the crime" a freudian slip? Do you really feel that anyone having sex where pregnancy is not wanted (most sex, by the way) is somehow commiting a crime?

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

Riiiight. But anyone getting pregnant deserves all they get, right? I mean, if they were having sex in the first place, you think they were pretty much asking for it?

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No.

Just not allow unborn children to be systematically killed.

I'm sorry, but given the choice between sedating and restraining a pregnant woman and killing a baby, I'd choose the former every time.

<SNIP>

What if the sedation caused serious injury or death to the foetus?

Jack Kyle

swampgas wrote: »

(My bold.)

So, was the phrase "did the crime" a freudian slip? Do you really feel that anyone having sex where pregnancy is not wanted (most sex, by the way) is somehow commiting a crime?

Riiiight. But anyone getting pregnant deserves all they get, right? I mean, if they were having sex in the first place, you think they were pretty much asking for it?

Nope...that just a saying...nothing more.

You're grasping at straws trying to find an Opus Dei bogeyman who isn't there.

I just don't agree with abortion.

swampgas

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I just don't agree with abortion.

Fair enough - many people don't. However (IMO) you're not doing a great job of explaining why though.

Jack Kyle

doctoremma wrote: »

So if an "embryonic stage" baby is your threshold between clump of cells/human, does that mean you accept very early abortion?

I accept that there's a point where a ball of cells becomes a baby. I have no particular beef with morning after pills or abortion before that point, whenever it may be. I don't know when it is, but I think that it's probably during the embryonic stage.

Jack Kyle

swampgas wrote: »

Fair enough - many people don't. However (IMO) you're not doing a great job of explaining why though.

I disagree - I think that I'm doing a far better job than people generally do.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I accept that there's a point where a ball of cells becomes a baby. I have no particular beef with morning after pills or abortion before that point, whenever it may be. I don't know when it is, but I think that it's probably during the embryonic stage.

Thanks. So you've already said you aren't a doctor, but what is attracting you to the time period pre-8 weeks for your definition? Is it really that the baby starts to look like a baby?

Afroshack

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Nope...that just a saying...nothing more.

You're grasping at straws trying to find an Opus Dei bogeyman who isn't there.

I just don't agree with abortion.

But you agree with forcibly restraining a pregnant woman until she gives birth?



...wow.

..Just wow.