Abortion Discussion

PopePalpatine

Here's a thought experiment. A foetus fails to develop a functioning brain (a condition called anencephaly). The mother suffers complications during pregnancy. If she is denied an abortion, she will fall into a coma and risk brain damage and death. What is the bigger evil - aborting a foetus with a fatal abnormality, or making a woman severely handicapped?

Jack Kyle

lazygal wrote: »

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

What if Batman crashed through the hospital wall and killed both mother and child?

The "what if" constant deflection and derailment of the pro-choice lobby is laughable really.

The existence of exceptions or weird cases shouldn't stop us from legislating for the majority of cases.

A 15 year old rape victim is an extreme case. How society deals with her situation is difficult to bottom out on.

However, people opting for abortion in "normal" situations are a disgrace in my view...morally reprehensible and criminals.

Jack Kyle

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment. A foetus fails to develop a functioning brain (a condition called anencephaly). The mother suffers complications during pregnancy. If she is denied an abortion, she will fall into a coma and risk brain damage and death. What is the bigger evil - aborting a foetus with a fatal abnormality, or making a woman severely handicapped?

You'd abort the baby.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

However, people opting for abortion in "normal" situations are a disgrace in my view...morally reprehensible and criminals.

Unless they abort sometime between 1 day and, say, six weeks, in which case, you 'have no beef'?

Jack Kyle

doctoremma wrote: »

Unless they abort sometime between 1 day and, say, six weeks, in which case, you 'have no beef'?

Correct...a bit less maybe but in principle, yes

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

What if Batman crashed through the hospital wall and killed both mother and child?

The "what if" constant deflection and derailment of the pro-choice lobby is laughable really.

The existence of exceptions or weird cases shouldn't stop us from legislating for the majority of cases.

A 15 year old rape victim is an extreme case. How society deals with her situation is difficult to bottom out on.

However, people opting for abortion in "normal" situations are a disgrace in my view...morally reprehensible and criminals.

You do know there's a vast array of drugs pregnant women are not given because of possible harm to the foetus? So how do you propose to sedate a woman on an ongoing basis while she gestates a foetus without causing her or the foetus harm?

Afroshack

Jack Kyle wrote: »

What if Batman crashed through the hospital wall and killed both mother and child?

The "what if" constant deflection and derailment of the pro-choice lobby is laughable really.

The existence of exceptions or weird cases shouldn't stop us from legislating for the majority of cases.

A 15 year old rape victim is an extreme case. How society deals with her situation is difficult to bottom out on.

However, people opting for abortion in "normal" situations are a disgrace in my view...morally reprehensible and criminals.

and wtf is a 'normal' situation? There really is no such thing. Women could abort because they have to take medication for their mental health which would have to stop if they were pregnant, they could be tied into a co-parenting relationship with an abusive spouse they are trying to escape, they could already have 3 kids to feed, perhaps the child is incompatible with life, perhaps they have serious physical health issues that would be magnified by the physical impact of a pregnancy?

Women don't just sit around glowing with happiness the whole time they are pregnant and enjoying their swollen..everything. Pregnancy can have very long-term implications for their physical and mental health and the matter of continuing their pregnancy should be between them and their doctor, and nobody else.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Correct...a bit less maybe but in principle, yes

I really am struggling with why you are ok with abortion at 6 weeks but advocate restraining and sedating women who want an abortion at 11 weeks.

Either it is a human life or not.

doctoremma

So Jack, you accept abortion in the following situations:

1. Before a developmental threshold where you think the baby becomes a human being.
2. In cases of risk to severe injury or death of the mother.
3. In cases of fatal fetal anomalies.
4. Rape.

So that's pretty much the pro-choice position.

dharma200

Priceless, restraining and sedating women to force them to have a baby they don't want.... Ok, so where will this happen, in catholic hospitals lol 6000 women a year restrained and sedated. Has to be the best yet...... Or locked up... Have to build a few more jails me thinks......

Sarky

BATMAN DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE.

Jesus. The ignorance of some people...

aloyisious

@Jack Kyle: re your stated position on abortion and healthy pregnant women, I'm assuming you would have (1) the law on imprisonment changed so that pregnant women could be kept incarcerated under sedation until (2) the feotuses/feti in their wombs could come to the birthing level and be delivered into the world.

I don't think civil hospital management teams in the Republic would go along with your vision. Ditto for the Nunneries, Convents and Homes etc. They've at least accepted their age has passed. That seem's to leave you with few options, (3) state prisons, or maybe even the secure Military Hospital in the Curragh - a place where guests of the nation were kept for medical care when Civil Hospitals were seen as not secure enough - as places of incarceration, unless (4) you were thinking of taking a page out of Irish Tradition and exporting the troublesome women to another state where your vision could be fulfilled, if you could find a protest-free place of deportation.

Without at least three of the above factors being in place, your vision seem's akin to a pipedream.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

The embryonic stage is a specific enough answer.

Not for somebody coming along with an opinion as strong as yours, no.

Why do you think you can speak so forcefully when you can't even provide specifics?

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

Nope.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

@Jack Kyle: re your stated position on abortion and healthy pregnant women, I'm assuming you would have (1) the law on imprisonment changed so that pregnant women could be kept incarcerated under sedation until (2) the feotuses/feti in their wombs could come to the birthing level and be delivered into the world.

I don't think civil hospital management teams in the Republic would go along with your vision. Ditto for the Nunneries, Convents and Homes etc. They've at least accepted their age has passed. That seem's to leave you with few options, (3) state prisons, or maybe even the secure Military Hospital in the Curragh - a place where guests of the nation were kept for medical care when Civil Hospitals were seen as not secure enough - as places of incarceration, unless (4) you were thinking of taking a page out of Irish Tradition and exporting the troublesome women to another state where your vision could be fulfilled, if you could find a protest-free place of deportation.

Without at least three of the above factors being in place, your vision seem's akin to a pipedream.

I doubt that such a system would be affordable, and I'll hazard a guess that multinationals won't want to invest in such a country, nor would the EU want to trade with us.

MrPudding

Jernal wrote: »

I'd say you must be close to punching squirrels now every time you see that.:D

Does it show?

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.

I am going to respond to this even though, having read your later posts, I suspect you are taking the p1ss.

I you wish to insist on calling an abortion murder can you please provide justification for the use of the term. Murder is a legal term and therefore is very specific. An abortion, whether in the uk or Ireland cannot satisfy the requirements of murder, even, I believe, where that abortion was, for some reason, illegal.

Pease try and put some accuracy into your language and stop trying trying to play the emotional angle.

MrP

Obliq

Sarky wrote: »

You may have noticed my temper beginning to wear a little thin lately...

Honestly I don't know how the regulars of this forum maintain the level of patience that they do.

:eek: I'm so close to not being able to look, never mind comment. Hats off to the posters here.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

However, people opting for abortion in "normal" situations are a disgrace in my view...morally reprehensible and criminals.

You haven't said anywhere how your view is morally superior to the view of someone pro-choice. I disagree with you. Now, try and change my mind about the morality of the "normal" abortion.....Really. Your view is important to me.

What (to you) makes a person opting for an abortion in "normal" situations morally wrong? What makes killing an embryo by choice wrong? I quite like bacon, beef and chicken btw, so please relate to the fact that we humans can "morally" rise above certain killings, in your answer....

Frito

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.

I have suggested a situation where dependency exists via need of repeat bone marrow donation, or we could use allogeneic stem cell transplantation instead.
What are your thoughts on the right to bodily autonomy of the donor vs. right to life of the recipient?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

Why do you think the penalty for murder is imprisonment?

Jack Kyle

So it's okay to kill unborn children because people shouldn't be forced to donate their organs?

You guys crack me up.

It's all the pro-abortion lobby do...design ridiculous arguments and scenarios to derail the discussion.

"But what about a man with two heads? Should he be allowed eat his second head? If you answer 'yes' to this question, your argument is in tatters and if you answer 'no' to this question, your argument is in tatters."

Frito

Thanks Jernal, should've just edited in the first place.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

So it's okay to kill unborn children because people shouldn't be forced to donate their organs?

You guys crack me up.

It's all the pro-abortion lobby do...design ridiculous arguments and scenarios to derail the discussion.

"But what about a man with two heads? Should he be allowed eat his second head? If you answer 'yes' to this question, your argument is in tatters and if you answer 'no' to this question, your argument is in tatters."

You might get back to me re my last post.....

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

So it's okay to kill unborn children because people shouldn't be forced to donate their organs?

You guys crack me up.

It's all the pro-abortion lobby do...design ridiculous arguments and scenarios to derail the discussion.

"But what about a man with two heads? Should he be allowed eat his second head? If you answer 'yes' to this question, your argument is in tatters and if you answer 'no' to this question, your argument is in tatters."

That isn't a very good rebuttal now is it?

C'mon, surely a man (you are a man arn't you?) of your strong convictions can come up with something better than that playground monologue.

Jack Kyle

Nodin wrote: »

You might get back to me re my last post.....

It wasn't worthy of a response.

You clearly have an agenda.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It wasn't worthy of a response.

You clearly have an agenda.

Do you not have an agenda?

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you not have an agenda?

No subversive or contrived agenda.

I'm not a card carrying member of Opus Dei or a disciple of William Binchy.

I'm just a guy who thinks that abortion is wrong and who's exploring his thoughts on the subject "live" online.

It's been interesting but my view hasn't changed.

Frito

Still waiting for your thoughts on the bone marrow scenario Jack.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No subversive or contrived agenda.

I'm not a card carrying member of Opus Dei or a disciple of William Binchy.

I'm just a guy who thinks that abortion is wrong and who's exploring his thoughts on the subject "live" online.

It's been interesting but my view hasn't changed.

We haven't even explored your view as of yet.

Why do you think you can speak so forcefully when you can't even provide specifics re when personhood begins?

And why do you talk of superficial things such as fingers and toes - surely the brain is the most important organ....?

Sarky

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No subversive or contrived agenda.

I'm not a card carrying member of Opus Dei or a disciple of William Binchy.

I'm just a guy who thinks that abortion is wrong and who's exploring his thoughts on the subject "live" online.

It's been interesting but my view hasn't changed.

Call me a baby-hating murderer if you must, but I am finding it very hard to believe you.

Doctor Strange

Ho. Ly. Sh*t. Please tell me we're being taken in by some huge Poe here. This sh*t can't be real. Restraining a woman and forcing her to give birth? There is so, so much wrong with that, I don't even know where to start. I'd imagine the UN would have a gander at that practice.