Abortion Discussion

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

For your information:

Viability is generally at around 24-26 weeks.

And life is never inevitable.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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?

We were discussing viability a while back. What kind of parameters do you have in mind when you use the phrase "viability"?

I think there is no point during pregnancy at which "life becomes inevitable". 24 weeks is the clinical cut off point for when "life becomes more likely than not".

YumCha

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

Oh yes, imagine the horrors of falling into the same moral black hole as those other baseless societies in backwards countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Spain, France, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy and so many others... :rolleyes:

Frito

He never did address the bone marrow example. I went to the trouble of making it the maintained dependency he wanted rather than created dependency. Nearly twenty pages I've been waiting.
What assumptions to make..?

Cabaal

YumCha wrote: »

Oh yes, imagine the horrors of falling into the same moral black hole as those other baseless societies in backwards countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Spain, France, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy and so many others... :rolleyes:

I know what you mean,

I mean the Netherlands as we know if a backwards hole of a place that cares little about people's rights, freedoms and health. Its an awful place to live and has an awful standard of living, healthcare and everyone dies young.

Damn those backwards countries,

gaynorvader

dharma200 wrote: »

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

I think trying to understand why people are led to believe these things is an important exercise. Are they misinformed? Do they have an incomplete understanding of something? Do they know something I don't?

VinLieger

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think trying to understand why people are led to believe these things is an important exercise. Are they misinformed? Do they have an incomplete understanding of something? Do they know something I don't?

More than likely they have been brought up in a rather religious house where its beaten into them to obey without thought everything a priest says. Although not all the anti choice would be from this exact origin id say the majority if not the vast majority are

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think trying to understand why people are led to believe these things is an important exercise. Are they misinformed? Do they have an incomplete understanding of something? Do they know something I don't?

Agree.

Without remotely sanctioning the sedation and imprisonment of a pregnant women for nine months to ensure she doesn't procure an abortion, I can certainly imagine temporarily restraining a woman so that she didn't cause injury to herself or her unborn child. What would any of you do if, when walking down the street, you came across a pregnant woman waving a knife around and threatening to stab herself in the stomach (assuming you could intervene without sustaining an injury to yourself)?

Jack has just gone a whole lot further than we would ever go. Indeed, so far that his sanity appears questionable.

However, assuming he's not actually insane, being willing to contravene international laws and guidelines pertaining to fundamental human rights must be a measure of quite how strongly he feels about the killing of an unborn child.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that he doesn't appear to give a toss if the unborn child doesn't yet have fingers.

kylith

Frito wrote: »

He never did address the bone marrow example. I went to the trouble of making it the maintained dependency he wanted rather than created dependency. Nearly twenty pages I've been waiting.
What assumptions to make..?

I never got an answer to my questions either.

I can only assume that he wants every woman leaving the country pregnancy tested and incarcerated for murder if she's not pregnant on her return. And that he thinks that it's preferable for a woman to be crippled and rendered unable to care for the children she already has rather than have an abortion.

<SNIP>
Every time I come across a pro-lifer with such an inflexible attitude to abortion like that I think: "The only moral abortion is my abortion"

doctoremma

kylith wrote: »

And life is never inevitable.

But life, uh, finds a way....

kylith

doctoremma wrote: »

But life, uh, finds a way....

Life, um.... Oh life. OOoooooh li-i-i-ife. Oh-oh. Doo doo doo do.

Cabaal

doctoremma wrote: »

But life, uh, finds a way....

If Jurassic Park has thought us anything..it always does, even with Dinosaurs

Frito

kylith wrote: »

I never got an answer to my questions either.

I can only assume that he wants every woman leaving the country pregnancy tested and incarcerated for murder if she's not pregnant on her return. And that he thinks that it's preferable for a woman to be crippled and rendered unable to care for the children she already has rather than have an abortion.

I pity the women in his family, though I get the feeling that were his unwed daughter to get pregnant it'd be straight to the UK so she wouldn't bring the shame of unwed motherhood on his family.

Every time I come across a pro-lifer with such an inflexible attitude to abortion like that I think: "The only moral abortion is my abortion"

My assumptions were he either didn't see it or saw it but couldn't answer from a pro-life position. I suspect he would've answered if he could. He might come back when he's thought of a reason why it's not comparable to abortion, which seems to be his default answer when defending his position.

Turtwig

Hi folks,

Personal speculation about the poster isn't encouraged and while some posters invariably start it about themselves there is still a limit to how much personal comments we will allow. Comments about a guy's family cross that limit.

Thanks,

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

I know what you mean,

I mean the Netherlands as we know if a backwards hole of a place that cares little about people's rights, freedoms and health. Its an awful place to live and has an awful standard of living, healthcare and everyone dies young.

Damn those backwards countries,

And of course every precious tiny baybeeeeee is aborted. Every. Single. One.

PopePalpatine

Why doesn't Jack cut out all of these "feminist" aspirations of bodily integrity and sedate all female babies at birth? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why doesn't Jack cut out all of these "feminist" aspirations of bodily integrity and sedate all female babies at birth? :rolleyes:

After he has defended them before they are born obviously.

Frito

Oops, I was speculating and I do know better so apologies to Jack.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think trying to understand why people are led to believe these things is an important exercise. Are they misinformed? Do they have an incomplete understanding of something? Do they know something I don't?

Whilst I'm inclined to agree, it's difficult to understand another position when repetition of the same point is given in lieu of an explanation of the truth of the point.
Maybe it's the subject matter? I must be dangerously close to "this is why we can't have a sensible discussion about abortion".

Sarky

Aw, I missed the tantrum

PopePalpatine

It's better for your blood pressure that you did. At least you haven't checked his "contributions" to a gay adoption thread in AH.

doctoremma

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better for your blood pressure that you did. At least you haven't checked his "contributions" to a gay adoption thread in AH.

Is there a reliable method by which I can 'unsee' this?

aloyisious

Soooo.... the abortion law has NOT yet come into effect. In today's Irish Indo: HOSPITALS are not yet obliged to report terminations of pregnancy to save the life of a woman because new abortion legislation is still not in operation. The Department of Health said yesterday that although the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act was signed into law on July 30 it was not yet active. The clarification from the department came after it was reported that a pregnant woman whose life was in danger had her pregnancy terminated in the National Maternity Hospital in Holles St in recent weeks.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hospitals-not-yet-obliged-to-report-number-of-abortions-29524366.html

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better for your blood pressure that you did. At least you haven't checked his "contributions" to a gay adoption thread in AH.

<The moderation decisions for another poster on another forum taken to DRP aren't really up for discussion here.>

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

<SNIP>

I've noticed that people who think that it's okay to murder unborn babies tend to think that homosexuality is as normal as popping to the shops for bread and milk.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

homosexuality is as normal as popping to the shops for bread and milk.

It is.

I know as I often homosexually pop to the shops for bread and milk. It's fab-u-lous.

Imprisoning and sedating pregnant women on the other hand is illegal.

doctoremma

Jack, should I/society be allowed, without consultation, to beat you to a pulp with a baseball bat in order to save the life of a child?

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Imprisoning and sedating pregnant woman on the other hand is illegal.

As is murdering an unborn child.

I would venture that sedating or restraining a pregnant woman is the lesser of the two evils.

If a pregnant woman displays murderous intent towards her unborn child, she should be counselled and educated. If and only if that fails, we should consider sedating and restraining her purely to protect the child

Her right to bodily integrity is important. However, the child's right to life is more important.

It is not the brutality of the regime that I'm proposing that would render certain misguided woman petri dishes or incubators against their will. It's their own murderous intent and lack of morality.

Jack Kyle

doctoremma wrote: »

Jack, should I/society be allowed, without consultation, to beat you to a pulp with a baseball bat in order to save the life of a child?

If there was no alternative, I'd willingly take the beating. Not just for my own child...I'd take it for yours.

The killing of a child is heartbreaking. The experiences that you and I have had and that the child will not have. It's upsetting.

I'd take my chances with the bat.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If there was no alternative, I'd willingly take the beating. Not just for my own child...I'd take it for yours.

The killing of a child is heartbreaking. The experiences that you and I have had and that the child will not have. It's upsetting.

I'd take my chances with the bat.

I am in complete agreement.

However, that doesn't really answer the question. Do you think, on principle, that I/society can compel you to take the beating, without your consent and against your will?

Jack Kyle

doctoremma wrote: »

I am in complete agreement.

However, that doesn't really answer the question. Do you think, on principle, that I/society can compel you to take the beating, without your consent and against your will?

Yes, because the child's right to life trumps my right not get get beaten.

You're presenting this as an "either/or" scenario. The simple answer is for society not to permit infanticide or random beatings.