Abortion Discussion

gaynorvader

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.

Why do you think the penalty for murder is imprisonment?

Frito

Sarky wrote: »

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

One day I'll get round to starting an alternative dictionary in TCN.

Baby-hating murderer origin:pro-life nomenclature see skeptic

Nodin

The first termination of a pregnancy carried out under the
provisions of new abortion legislation has taken place at the National Maternity Hospital on Holles Street,
Dublin.


The termination of the twin pregnancy was carried out on a
patient who was almost 18 weeks’ pregnant in view of the risk to her life and
the unviability of her pregnancy, according to sources at the hospital. Foetal
heartbeat were present.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/first-abortion-carried-out-under-new-legislation-1.1502946

SmilingLurker

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/first-abortion-carried-out-under-new-legislation-1.1502946

I hope she is doing well, and the risk to her life has ended or has been reduced. Glad my wife is due to deliver in that enlightened hospital soon.

If there was a risk to her life, I would want her treated.

El_Duderino 09

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.

Jack, you keep making this comparison and it's wrong. Having an abortion would be akin to you being the only potential kidney donor and deciding not to donate it.

By your logic, you should be sedated and forced to donate the organ because the right to life trumps your right to bodily integrity... Right?

The Black Oil

I hope that woman is doing OK. For privacy reasons I'm a little uneasy about the need to broadcast the case, though.

lazygal

The Black Oil wrote: »

I hope that woman is doing OK. For privacy reasons I'm a little uneasy about the need to broadcast the case, though.

This. Its incredibly identifiable given the specific facts of the case and I don't think the medical treatment of a woman needs to hit the headlines.

Peter Boylan was hopping mad about the leaking of the story on Morning Ireland and I don't blame him. I'm pregnant myself and I'd be devastated if something so private as a termination was leaked to the press.

Afroshack

lazygal wrote: »

This. Its incredibly identifiable given the specific facts of the case and I don't think the medical treatment of a woman needs to hit the headlines.

Peter Boylan was hopping mad about the leaking of the story on Morning Ireland and I don't blame him. I'm pregnant myself and I'd be devastated if something so private as a termination was leaked to the press.

Off topic, but congratulations

Bannasidhe

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.

That highlighted bit - that's an agenda.

I have an agenda too (pro-choice) and the only cards I carry are banking/work related.

PopePalpatine

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

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.

I'd say if Jack's dream were to come true, we'd quickly become a sort of Catholic North Korea.

gaynorvader

@Jack Kyle:

Do you disagree with any of the following?

• Abortion is not okay, except under specific circumstances.
• Abortion is okay when the woman is a victim of rape.
• Abortion is okay when the pregnancy threatens the woman's life or long term health.
• Abortion is okay if the foetus has no brain activity.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A lesser evil than the killling of an unborn child.

How traumatic is it to remove a clump of non sentient cells compared to restraining and forcing a woman to go through a pregancy just to satisfy you?

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

We can't control what goes on outside of Ireland.

However, we can prevent babies from being murdered in our country.

I am against abortion as a form of contraception or as a lifestyle choice. There are so many childless couples crying out for children to adopt.

That doesn't answer my questions.

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?

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'd say that she should be forced to carry the child to term.

If I was faced with the prospect of serious injury or killing you, a complete stranger, I'd go for the injury. I'd like to think that when it comes to the baby inside a woman, she'd happily "take one for the team".

It's not 'injury' like a broken leg or a cut, it can be more serious than that. My grandmother was crippled, bedridden for the latter part of her life, because of a pregnancy. Do you honestly think that it is better for a woman who already has children to be left unable to look after them because she has been left unable to stand or walk by a pregnancy than it would be to abort one child to allow 6 others to have a mother who can care for them?

Sarky wrote: »

BATMAN DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE.

Jesus. The ignorance of some people...

He has no qualms about maiming though.

old hippy wrote: »

How traumatic is it to remove a clump of non sentient cells compared to restraining and forcing a woman to go through a pregancy just to satisfy you?

...I have no words to describe how I feel about the remarks this man is making... The utter lack of compassion is shocking to me. It is the position of a person who will never have to cope with a crisis pregnancy.

I wonder if he has told his daughters that if they get pregnant and don't want it that he will tie them to their beds and force them to bring it to term.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

@Jack Kyle:

Do you disagree with any of the following?

• Abortion is not okay, except under specific circumstances.
• Abortion is okay when the woman is a victim of rape.
• Abortion is okay when the pregnancy threatens the woman's life or long term health.
• Abortion is okay if the foetus has no brain activity.

All bar in instances of rape. The child is innocent.

Jack Kyle

kylith wrote: »

That doesn't answer my questions.

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?



It's not 'injury' like a broken leg or a cut, it can be more serious than that. My grandmother was crippled, bedridden for the latter part of her life, because of a pregnancy. Do you honestly think that it is better for a woman who already has children to be left unable to look after them because she has been left unable to stand or walk by a pregnancy than it would be to abort one child to allow 6 others to have a mother who can care for them?



He has no qualms about maiming though.

...I have no words to describe how I feel about the remarks this man is making... The utter lack of compassion is shocking to me. It is the position of a person who will never have to cope with a crisis pregnancy.

I wonder if he has told his daughters that if they get pregnant and don't want it that he will tie them to their beds and force them to bring it to term.

Allowing people to get information is a moot point in this digital age.

I object to the term "crisis pregnancy" as it's laden with meaning and undertone. The pro-abortion lobby like to use this phrase as it somehow deems abortion as a reaction to a "crisis".

PopePalpatine

Jack Kyle wrote: »

All bar in instances of rape. The child is innocent.

And the woman isn't?

Jack Kyle

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And the woman isn't?

Of course she is...however her rights don't trump the baby's rights

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

All bar in instances of rape. The child is innocent.

So is the rape victim but, if you had your way, her ordeal would continue for 9 months. That's 9 months of control over her own body being taken from her because she was the victim of rape.

In fact, going by your previous statements, you would have a rape victim restrained and sedated if she wanted an abortion.

Think about that - to be raped and then restrained and sedated against your will for a further 9 months - How on Earth can you think this barbarity is acceptable?

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Allowing people to get information is a moot point in this digital age.

I object to the term "crisis pregnancy" as it's laden with meaning and undertone. The pro-abortion lobby like to use this phrase as it somehow deems abortion as a reaction to a "crisis".

In your opinion should the right of Irish women to receive information on procuring a termination abroad be revoked?

In your opinion should the right of Irish women to travel for the purpose of securing a termination be revoked?

In your opinion should women returning to Ireland from procuring a termination abroad be incarcerated?


In your opinion is it better for a woman who already has children to be left unable to look after them because she has been left unable to stand or walk by a pregnancy than it would be to abort one child to allow 6 others to have a mother who can care for them?

And crisis pregnancy is a perfectly valid term unless you can explain how an unexpected pregnancy is NOT a turning point, a condition of instability whether social or economic, or a dramatic emotional and circumstantial upheaval in a woman's life.

dictionary.com wrote:

cri·sis [krahy-sis] plural cri·ses [krahy-seez]
1.
a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.
2.
a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.
3.
a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So is the rape victim but, if you had your way, her ordeal would continue for 9 months. That's 9 months of control over her own body being taken from her because she was the victim of rape.

In fact, going by your previous statements, you would have a rape victim restrained and sedated if she wanted an abortion.

Think about that - to be raped and then restrained and sedated against your will for a further 9 months - How on Earth can you think this barbarity is acceptable?

It's shocking, but it's preferable to butchering innocent unborn children.

It'd clearly be barbaric for you to be tied up and beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat. However, given the choice between killing children and giving you the baseball bat treatment, wouldn't you take the latter?

PopePalpatine

Judging by your definition of a "child" - which I presume is a foetus at >12 weeks - yes, I'd rather see the foetus terminated than BE STRAPPED TO A F*CKING BED IN SOME SICK, DEMENTED HOSPITAL FOR UP TO 38 WEEKS.

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

All bar in instances of rape. The child is innocent.

But the woman has not made a choice to have the child. Is it fair to force her to carry it to term? To force her to lend her body to another human? Would it be more humane to take the child out, try to keep it alive then put it up for adoption?

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's shocking, but it's preferable to butchering innocent unborn children.

It'd clearly be barbaric for you to be tied up and beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat. However, given the choice between killing children and giving you the baseball bat treatment, wouldn't you take the latter?

Weren't you complaining about other people outlining extreme and unlikely scenarios? Yet here you are talking about baseball bats and beating people to a pulp to avoid children being killed. What does the actions of some psycho (who else would tie someone up and beat them to death with a baseball bat???) have to do with a rape victim's torment being prolonged?

What you are advocating is beyond shocking - what you want is barbarity.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

But the woman has not made a choice to have the child. Is it fair to force her to carry it to term? To force her to lend her body to another human? Would it be more humane to take the child out, try to keep it alive then put it up for adoption?

If that could be done, that would be great.

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So is the rape victim but, if you had your way, her ordeal would continue for 9 months. That's 9 months of control over her own body being taken from her because she was the victim of rape.

In fact, going by your previous statements, you would have a rape victim restrained and sedated if she wanted an abortion.

Think about that - to be raped and then restrained and sedated against your will for a further 9 months - How on Earth can you think this barbarity is acceptable?

It wouldn't be 9 months. He said he'd have no problems with the abortion if there was no brain activity in the foetus (which occurs around week 26 iirc), so I'm actually not sure there's even an issue here.

IT-Guy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

All bar in instances of rape. The child is innocent.

There isn't a child that is being 'punished' here. Just a non sentient clump of cells with zero rights being removed from a sentient, autonomous woman who has all the rights to dictate what happens to her body and to determine when a pregnancy is suitable for her.

Even though you say you're not religious or prudish, I'll counter those elements of your redundant argument by saying a pregnancy is not a gift from god, a woman's body is not a gift from god (broodmare attitude) and what a woman allows happen to her body is her choice, not yours, not mine and no POV that mirrors the religious opinion toward abortion should be imposed on any woman.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

It wouldn't be 9 months. He said he'd have no problems with the abortion if there was no brain activity in the foetus (which occurs around week 26 iirc), so I'm actually not sure there's even an issue here.

I was referring to a child with no prospect of survival so there's a massive issue.

How people can place a woman's right to bodily integrity above a viable baby's right to life is beyond me.

The pro-abortion side are the real extremists.

What's next, euthanising the elderly?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I was referring to a child with no prospect of survival so there's a massive issue.

How people can place a woman's right to bodily integrity above a viable baby's right to life is beyond me.

The pro-abortion side are the real extremists.

What's next, euthanising the elderly?

! So you disagree that abortion is alright to carry out on a foetus with no brain activity?

kylith

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Judging by your definition of a "child" - which I presume is a foetus at >12 weeks - yes, I'd rather see the foetus terminated than BE STRAPPED TO A F*CKING BED IN SOME SICK, DEMENTED HOSPITAL FOR UP TO 38 WEEKS.

I cannot agree enough. In fact I would go so far as to say that strapping a woman to a bed FOR SIX MONTHS and FORCING her to have a child THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT: forcing her to risk her life with pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, high or low blood pressure, or any of the other things that can go wrong in pregnancy, and forcing her to go through a dangerous, traumatic and painful birth (and c-sections are still dangerous, traumatic and painful) is a type of rape in itself; removing from a woman the ability to control her own body is a gross violation.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

! So you disagree that abortion is alright to carry out on a foetus with no brain activity?

Are we talking about a foetus that has yet to develop brain activity or a non viable foetus?