Abortion Discussion

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Impossible to answer when not in that position.

Jack, do you only reply to questions for which you have easy answers prepared?

You have failed to address the conflict between your position and the pro-life position, which has been outlined by myself and others.

You have also failed to offer any discussion of competing rights to life and bodily integrity, other than a blanket statement that X beats Y and that's that.

Someone has also highlighted the incongruity of having such forceful opinions with very little actual substance to justify them. I agree.

Any deeper thoughts on the wider issues here, or are you content with superficial platitudes that frankly insult everyone who has taken the time and effort to argue eloquently, to put interesting points to you and to ask tough questions?

MrPudding

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That's 9 months of control over her own
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 only a woman.

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

It's only a woman.

MrP

And to think people were screaming that Olivia O'Leary was bang out of order to use the word Taliban when discussing how women are treated in this country when it comes to their reproductive rights. Gee, she must have just plucked that idea out of the thin air...

Jack Kyle

dharma200 wrote: »

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.

Ah, this old chestnut. Classic feminist propaganda. Because it's "your body", 50% of the population needn't apply when it comes to giving an opinion. I think not. It's up to everyone, man and woman, to defend an unborn child's right to life.

As for me not being in that situation, arguably a rape victim's or her parent's views are irrelevant as they're desperate and irrational. People trapped in poverty probably think it's okay to steal.

Sedating and restraining a pregnant woman who's contemplating the murder of her unborn child is shocking but it's the lesser of two evils. A womb is not akin to a kidney.

dharma200

Jack... Wtf are you on about... Go away

Jack Kyle

Cabaal wrote: »

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?

In such circumstances, my opinion would be based on my emotional response rather than what's morally right, so it's not really relevant.

The decision to have an abortion is better taken by an objective committee of calm individuals rather than a physically and emotionally battered rape victim and / or her parents.

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Ah, this old chestnut. Classic feminist propaganda. Because it's "your body", 50% of the population needn't apply when it comes to giving an opinion. I think not. It's up to everyone, man and woman, to defend an unborn child's right to life.

As for me not being in that situation, arguably a rape victim's or her parent's views are irrelevant as they're desperate and irrational. People trapped in poverty probably think it's okay to steal.

Sedating and restraining a pregnant woman who's contemplating the murder of her unborn child is shocking but it's the lesser of two evils. A womb is not akin to a kidney.

Why do you believe a foetus becomes a child when it's human shaped?
Does this make all primates human because they are human shaped?
Should corpses be treated as human because they are human shaped?
Obviously this is ridiculous, so what makes a foetus special in your mind?

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

As for me not being in that situation, arguably a rape victim's or her parent's views are irrelevant as they're desperate and irrational. People trapped in poverty probably think it's okay to steal.

A rape victim should have opinion of what happens to her afterwards? That's just charming.

Sedating and restraining a pregnant woman who's contemplating the murder of her unborn child is shocking but it's the lesser of two evils. A womb is not akin to a kidney.

Sedating and restraining a woman for no reason other than she does not want to carry and bear a child FOR ANY REASON is a revolting, backwards, medieval, bigoted, disgusting suggestion, and I am ashamed to belong to the same species as someone who would hold that view. Your lack of empathy is terrifying and your attitude to women as bad as any religious fundamentalist of any creed.

Jack Kyle

doctoremma wrote: »

Jack, do you only reply to questions for which you have easy answers prepared?

You have failed to address the conflict between your position and the pro-life position, which has been outlined by myself and others.

You have also failed to offer any discussion of competing rights to life and bodily integrity, other than a blanket statement that X beats Y and that's that.

Someone has also highlighted the incongruity of having such forceful opinions with very little actual substance to justify them. I agree.

Any deeper thoughts on the wider issues here, or are you content with superficial platitudes that frankly insult everyone who has taken the time and effort to argue eloquently, to put interesting points to you and to ask tough questions?

I've done my best to answer each and every of the many questions put to me (more than anyone else has done).

I've taken the time and effort to argue eloquently.

If I've ignored a question or points it's either because of the sheer volume of posts or the fact that the post didn't deserve a response. Yours falls into the latter category - Nonsense designed to discredit another poster. Pure hot air. Who has all the answers?

kylith

Did you know that rabbits can abort pregnancies in times of famine or stress?

Rabbits abort if they don't feel they can provide for their young, and human men would see human women tied down and drugged.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I've done my best to answer each and every of the many questions put to me (more than anyone else has done).

I've taken the time and effort to argue eloquently.

If I've ignored a question or points it's either because of the sheer volume of posts or the fact that the post didn't deserve a response. Yours falls into the latter category - Nonsense designed to discredit another poster. Pure hot air. Who has all the answers?

You haven't answered these ones. If you would be so good:

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?

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sedating and restraining a pregnant woman who's contemplating the murder of her unborn child is shocking but it's the lesser of two evils. A womb is not akin to a kidney.

Tying up a woman and forcing her to bring a clump of cells to birth is abuse. Shocking, abhorrent, misogynist, degrading and dangerous. You'd inflict such a vile act on thousands of women, would you?

Jack Kyle

I would like to see statistics regarding the viability of a pregnancy at its various stages.

For example, if it's at the implantation stage that "life becomes inevitable", perhaps that's the point at which abortion becomes immoral?

I don't have all the answers.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I've done my best to answer each and every of the many questions put to me (more than anyone else has done).

I've taken the time and effort to argue eloquently.

If I've ignored a question or points it's either because of the sheer volume of posts or the fact that the post didn't deserve a response. Yours falls into the latter category - Nonsense designed to discredit another poster. Pure hot air. Who has all the answers?

Frankly, I'm surprised the good doctor, one of our brightest and most eloquent posters, gives you the time of day. Have the manners and courage of your convictions to reply to her.

Jack Kyle

old hippy wrote: »

Frankly, I'm surprised the good doctor, one of our brightest and most eloquent posters, gives you the time of day. Have the manners and courage of your convictions to reply to her.

Asking the same ludicrous questions about forced organ donation is neither bright nor eloquent.

I don't get any sense of brightness or eloquence from the most of the contributors to this thread...it's more rabid Ivana Bacik-esque man hatred "it's my body" loony left stuff.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I don't have all the answers.

Indeed.

Yet it doesn't stop you making pronouncements as to what is and is not murder; what should happen to pregnant women; and proclaim yourself defender of the unborn.

Cabaal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I've done my best to answer each and every of the many questions put to me (more than anyone else has done).

I've taken the time and effort to argue eloquently.

eloquently,
Oh man, you've made my day.

You've argued in an insulting way to all women, sexist and have expressed the types of views that led to women being locked up for decades because they got pregnant perhaps.

But certainly have not argued eloquently.

Jack Kyle

Goodbye.

I'm out.

There's an agenda in this thread and a clique at work.

Attempting to discredit your opponent by nitpicking and throwing out ludicrous examples is the lowest form of debate.

I'll leave you to it.

If you think that murdering unborn babies in the name of women's lib is okay, I fear for society.

Your welcome to your vision of a sick and twisted society.

Keep thanking each other's posts...it's very meaningful.

All the best.

Jack

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

...it's more rabid Ivana Bacik-esque man hatred "it's my body" loony left stuff.

Resorting to those school yard rants again while simultaneously accusing others of being neither bright or elegant.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Asking the same ludicrous questions about forced organ donation is neither bright nor eloquent.

I don't get any sense of brightness or eloquence from the most of the contributors to this thread...it's more rabid Ivana Bacik-esque man hatred "it's my body" loony left stuff.

The only hatred I see is from you towards women. Specifically the prolonged mental & physical torture of rape victims, which you fully endorse.

And using tired old cliches like the hilighted above, weakens your non argument even further.

dharma200

An agenda? From a person who advocates restraining and confining woman to force them to give birth... I've heard it all now.

Cabaal

Jack Kyle, when you're finished throwing the toys out of your pram because you've been foolish enough to dig some very insulting and disturbing holes whilst claiming to be morally superior, do you mind cleaning them up before you leave?

Cool, thanks.

fatmammycat

So, biscuit anyone?

dharma200

I'm having some chew its myself... That was pretty horrible that was... I am all for people having attitudes and beliefs but that there was quite frankly a little scary.

Bannasidhe

fatmammycat wrote: »

So, biscuit anyone?

I'm making loony lefty feminista Wellington Squares with the grandkids if anyone is interested.

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Goodbye.

I'm out.

There's an agenda in this thread and a clique at work.

Attempting to discredit your opponent by nitpicking and throwing out ludicrous examples is the lowest form of debate.

I'll leave you to it.

If you think that murdering unborn babies in the name of women's lib is okay, I fear for society.

Your welcome to your vision of a sick and twisted society.

Keep thanking each other's posts...it's very meaningful.

All the best.

Jack

I assure you I have no agenda other than trying to understand your thoughts. I think the crux of the debate has circled around the differing definitions yourself and others have around what constitutes a baby and what doesn't, which is why I asked you for the reasons behind your assertion that it was when it looked human-shaped.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Goodbye.

Attempting to discredit your opponent by nitpicking and throwing out ludicrous examples is the lowest form of debate.

I'll leave you to it.

If you think that murdering unborn babies in the name of women's lib is okay, I fear for society.

Your welcome to your vision of a sick and twisted society.

Oh, oh, the irony. It burnsss.

dharma200

gaynorvader wrote: »

I assure you I have no agenda other than trying to understand your thoughts. I think the crux of the debate has circled around the differing definitions yourself and others have around what constitutes a baby and what doesn't, which is why I asked you for the reasons behind your assertion that it was when it looked human-shaped.

I wouldn't want to understand a persons thoughts who openly said they would have women restrained and confined and forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies and birth. That person is best let off without any further engagement... That type of advocation of violence towards women should carry a ban x

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Yours falls into the latter category - Nonsense designed to discredit another poster. Pure hot air. Who has all the answers?

Your assertion:

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A mother has a right to bodily integrity and a baby has a right to life. The right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity.

My response:

doctoremma wrote: »

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.

A later post from you:

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?

My response:

doctoremma wrote: »

....
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.

Hot air? And discrediting you? How?

Your entire objection to abortion is that the baby's right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily integrity. I counter-asserted that the right to bodily integrity should never be superseded by someone else's right to life, and offered some descriptive examples. You later appear to acknowledge that by offering a comparable descriptive example of your own, and including language pertaining to the choice involved in sacrificing bodily integrity. Are you suggesting that nobody should pursue this point with you?

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you think that murdering unborn babies in the name of women's lib is okay, I fear for society.

Jack, YOU think murdering unborn babies is OK. It's YOUR society.