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…5152545657…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1592
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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.

    No- he quibbled at any thing beyond embryo being aborted so the max for that is about 10 weeks after last menstruation. Some women don't even realise they are pregnant by that stage!

    It doesn't matter if it is 9 months, 9 days or 9 minutes - to believe that a rape victim should, after an already traumatic ordeal, then be restrained and sedated against her will for even 9 seconds is horrific.


  • Options
    #1593
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Are we talking about a foetus that has yet to develop brain activity or a non viable foetus?

    A foetus that has yet to develop brain activity.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No- he quibbled at any thing beyond embryo being aborted so the max for that is about 10 weeks after last menstruation. Some women don't even realise they are pregnant by that stage!

    It doesn't matter if it is 9 months, 9 days or 9 minutes - to believe that a rape victim should, after an already traumatic ordeal, then be restrained and sedated against her will for even 9 seconds is horrific.

    Apologies, I appear to have misunderstood Jack's position. I thought that by 26 weeks the foetus stood a good chance of surviving independently of the rape victim and so there was no longer an issue.


  • Options
    #1594
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    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.
    Imagine this: You discover that the lump on your side isn't a lump; it's actually a conjoined twin who was absorbed into your body in utero (this has happened, so it's not a fanciful idea. It's also the closest thought experiment I can come up with to a man finding himself pregnant). Though unconscious it has a brain which regulates its heartbeat, it receives its nourishment from your blood. Doctors discover that your conjoined twin is endangering your health; perhaps you share an organ and it can't cope with the strain of two beings using it. Your twin will probably die in about a year.

    Does your unconscious twin's right to live until natural death trump your right to bodily integrity? Would you have your twin removed so that your health can recover, or do you live with what is essentially a parasite impacting your health for the next 12 months?

    What's next, euthanising the elderly?
    Who, other than you, has mentioned anything like that?


  • Options
    #1595
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    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?

    Sounds like accessory to continued abuse. It's not acceptable.

    This is the true face of militant anti-abortion extremism. Women are less than human and to be treated as such.


  • Options
    #1596
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,929 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    The foetus is good, the foetus is great, the woman surrenders her will, as of this date.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1597
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    The pro-choice lobby are the ones advocating infanticide.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    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.
    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    The pro-abortion lobby like to use this phrase as it somehow deems abortion as a reaction to a "crisis".
    I think it's funny that as soon as doctoremma pointed out that your stance aligns you more with the pro-choice side, you suddenly changed the name you use.

    Not making any point here. Just an observation.


  • Options
    #1598
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    All bar in instances of rape. The child is innocent.

    But given your previous answers, you are not opposed to handing out the morning after pill, so perhaps we didn't really need to specify rape as an exclusion to an abortion ban.


  • Options
    #1599
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    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?

    I previously outlined a handful of situations illustrating that the right to life to life does not supersede the right to bodily integrity. I suspect you didn't read it but I am pleased to see that you have now provided yet another example, and acknowledged the crux of the dilemma.

    In your hypothetical, the situation exists such that a child dies or I get beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat.

    By your own words, you acknowledge the choice I have to accept the beating - to surrender my right to bodily integrity - in order to allow a child to live. And it is a choice. I may choose not to, and you would be free to judge me as you see fit.

    In NO civilised society, should anyone be able to administer the beating without my consent. Sure, a child will die. Sure, I can be pressured, persuaded or subject to sanctions to ensure that my decision goes in a particular direction.

    But you cannot simply beat me up to save a child.


  • Options
    #1600
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    kylith wrote: »
    Imagine this: You discover that the lump on your side isn't a lump; it's actually a conjoined twin who was absorbed into your body in utero (this has happened, so it's not a fanciful idea. It's also the closest thought experiment I can come up with to a man finding himself pregnant). Though unconscious it has a brain which regulates its heartbeat, it receives its nourishment from your blood. Doctors discover that your conjoined twin is endangering your health; perhaps you share an organ and it can't cope with the strain of two beings using it. Your twin will probably die in about a year.

    Does your unconscious twin's right to live until natural death trump your right to bodily integrity? Would you have your twin removed so that your health can recover, or do you live with what is essentially a parasite impacting your health for the next 12 months?



    Who, other than you, has mentioned anything like that?

    The unconscious twin should be removed.


  • Options
    #1601
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    LordChessington wrote: »
    I think it's funny that as soon as doctoremma pointed out that your stance aligns you more with the pro-choice side, you suddenly changed the name you use.

    Not making any point here. Just an observation.

    I deliberately changed it because the term was being hijacked to make some sort or weird counter-argument.

    I don't support abortion in rape cases so we're not aligned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1602
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    I deliberately changed it because the term was being hijacked to make some sort or weird counter-argument.

    I don't support abortion in rape cases so we're not aligned.
    But you accept the morning after pill in any circumstance, so it could feasibly be given out automatically to rape victims?


  • Options
    #1603
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    I deliberately changed it because the term was being hijacked to make some sort or weird counter-argument.

    I don't support abortion in rape cases so we're not aligned.

    Indeed, which given your insistence of restraining the woman and forcing her to spend another 9 months of horror makes you a rapist by proxy or at least an accesory to rape, doesn't it?


  • Options
    #1604
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    I deliberately changed it because the term was being hijacked to make some sort or weird counter-argument.

    It's not a weird counter-argument. Several of us have pointed out your pro-choice credentials over a number of pages.

    You are not pro-life. The only logically consistent pro-life position is that abortion, from conception to birth, can never be considered, with the very difficult recognition that where the life of the pregnant woman is in certain or near-certain danger, the fetus must be sacrificed.

    There have been people on this thread who maintain that position. I don't agree with them but at least they can legitimately call themselves "pro-life". You, however, are stuck in the middle, much the same as the rest of us. Abortion is OK when you think that the embryo/fetus is not a human being.

    You might be quantitatively different to the rest of us baby-murdering scum, but don't for one minute kid yourself that you are qualitatively different.


  • Options
    #1605
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    old hippy wrote: »
    Indeed, which given your insistence of restraining the woman and forcing her to spend another 9 months of horror makes you a rapist by proxy or at least an accesory to rape, doesn't it?

    Does your support of abortion make you a child murderer by proxy or at least an accessory to infanticide?


  • Options
    #1606
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,929 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    old hippy wrote: »
    Indeed, which given your insistence of restraining the woman and forcing her to spend another 9 months of horror makes you a rapist by proxy or at least an accesory to rape, doesn't it?

    It sounds disturbingly like what Josef Fritzl or Ariel Castro would do.


  • Options
    #1607
    Afroshack
    Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Afroshack


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Does your support of abortion make you a child murderer by proxy or at least an accessory to infanticide?

    How old are you Jack? Genuine question.


  • Options
    #1608
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Does your support of abortion make you a child murderer by proxy or at least an accessory to infanticide?

    Not at all. Supporting women's rights to have a surgical procedure is not any of the above. What you are advocating is something much darker, indeed. Prolonging a sexual assault.

    <SNIP>


  • Options
    #1609
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    old hippy wrote: »
    Not at all. Supporting women's rights to have a surgical procedure is not any of the above. What you are advocating is something much darker, indeed. Prolonging a sexual assault.

    Just admit it, you feel nothing when a woman is raped. Your only concern is to prolong the agony. Just so your precious zygote can flower, like a prize marrow.

    Not at all - It's a tragedy and heinous violation when a woman is raped.

    However, the innocent baby that may or may not be created is just that - Innocent. It has rights.


  • Options
    #1610
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    Afroshack wrote: »
    How old are you Jack? Genuine question.

    Late 30s


  • Options
    #1611
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    old hippy wrote: »
    Indeed, which given your insistence of restraining the woman and forcing her to spend another 9 months of horror makes you a rapist by proxy or at least an accesory to rape, doesn't it?

    Whoa, I don't think holding a view could make one a proxy to rape, were he to support it being passed into law or administered the drug himself he might be.
    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Does your support of abortion make you a child murderer by proxy or at least an accessory to infanticide?

    No, because the definition of when a foetus becomes a child is unclear. I would say it is after it has brain activity as this, for me, is what defines us as human. I'd say again that he'd have to be involved somehow, merely holding a view does not make one a murderer or accessory.
    old hippy wrote: »
    Not at all. Supporting women's rights to have a surgical procedure is not any of the above. What you are advocating is something much darker, indeed. Prolonging a sexual assault.
    <SNIP>

    This seems a little inflammatory, if you don't mind me saying so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1612
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Not at all - It's a tragedy and heinous violation when a woman is raped.

    However, the innocent baby that may or may not be created is just that - Innocent. It has rights.

    Crocodile tears. The rape has happened. The agony can be lessened. Concentrate on the living, sentient being not some imaginary future human being.

    The woman is innocent & yet you wish to prolong the sexual assault. How heinous is that, Jack?

    I'm getting the impression that you actively dislike women and see them as vessels to fulfil your archaic patriarchal wishes.


  • Options
    #1613
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Not at all - It's a tragedy and heinous violation when a woman is raped.

    However, the innocent baby that may or may not be created is just that - Innocent. It has rights.

    Would you feel that way if the victim was your wife or girlfriend?


  • Options
    #1614
    Jack Kyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 442 ✭✭Jack Kyle


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Would you feel that way if the victim was your wife or girlfriend?

    Impossible to answer when not in that position.


  • Options
    #1615
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Impossible to answer when not in that position.

    And yet you judge others for having abortions. Interesting.


  • Options
    #1616
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    The unconscious twin should be removed.
    You would choose to end a life that has been going on as long as you have been alive to save your own health.

    How do you think you would feel if it were then proposed that you were tied to a bed and medicated until this unconscious twin died of natural causes?


  • Options
    #1617
    dharma200
    Registered Users Posts: 998 ✭✭✭dharma200


    Jack you will never be in the position to require an abortion, and that is exactly why your opinion and suggestions on this matter mean nothing, however you suggestion of sedating and confining women to force them to continue with a pregnancy shows that you are indeed, as far as I am concerned, a very dangerous individual.


  • Options
    #1618
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,929 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    old hippy wrote: »
    And yet you judge others for having abortions. Interesting.

    Not to mention asking people would they rather get bludgeoned half to death or allow a child to be killed.


  • Options
    #1619
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Impossible to answer when not in that position.

    Exactly. You have not been in that position. Hopefully you, or rather your partner, never will be. And you unfortunately do not seem to have the capacity to imagine yourself in that position.

    However these are the kinds of things women have to consider because we are at risk of being raped. We are the ones who have had pregnancy scares that our partners are unaware of. I would say that there are very few women who, when her period is two weeks late, hasn't asked herself "What would I do? Would I go to England?".

    Think about it. If your daughter got pregnant would you threaten to lock her in her room or tie her to her bed until the child is born? If your wife's health was impacted by a pregnancy would you look her in the eyes and tell her that you believe that what's in her belly has more rights than she does?


  • Options
    #1620
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    old hippy wrote: »
    And yet you judge others for having abortions. Interesting.

    Exactly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1621
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Jack Kyle wrote: »
    Impossible to answer when not in that position.

    But yet you can have a view on abortions in general....but you're not in that position either. Hmmm...funny that
    :rolleyes:

    How about you guess based on your own thought processes and viewpoints what way you think you would feel if the victim was your wife or girlfriend?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement