Abortion Discussion

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

Ah yes, the old 'for the the greater good we must imprison these women in case they may do something we disagree with'/ 'It's for their own good'/'They are asking for it by being immoral' (according to a specific definition of 'immoral').

Women can make up their own minds Jack - they don't need the likes of you to guide them. Particularly the likes of you given that you are advocating imprisoning people who have not actually committed what you deem a 'crime'.... (well, a crime after 6 weeks...maybe 8 weeks ...10 weeks max... you are not very consistent in your views) but are only thinking about it.

Innocent until proven guilty would seem to have no place in your world view - should I make a complaint to the authorities that you are advocating committing several crimes?

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

You realise you've contradicted yourself?

In one sentence you're saying that it's okay for a person/society to compel a person to be beaten against their will, and in the next saying that society shouldn't permit random beatings.

Afroshack

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.

In that case Jack, what are you doing about the situation in Syria? What have you done for the ISPCC/Barnardos? I assume you regularly donate money to the research and prevention of childhood illnesses, volunteer your time with ill or disadvantaged children and without a shadow of a doubt, you donate blood and platelets as often as you are medically allowed, right? Because being willing to restrain a pregnant women until birth in the name of defending a child is pretty sick. If your compassion extends only to children in the womb, well then that's fairly hypocritical.

fatmammycat

Afroshack wrote: »

In that case Jack, what are you doing about the situation in Syria? What have you done for the ISPCC/Barnardos? I assume you regularly donate money to the research and prevention of childhood illnesses, volunteer your time with ill or disadvantaged children and without a shadow of a doubt, you donate blood and platelets as often as you are medically allowed, right? Because being willing to restrain a pregnant women until birth in the name of defending a child is pretty sick. If your compassion extends only to children in the womb, well then that's fairly hypocritical.

Fairly typical for most of the anti-choice crowd though.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

Ok. So I think it's fair to say that our personal ethical systems are in opposition on this point. That is, of course, perfectly legitimate.

However, your response here is in opposition to your stance when the beating includes the removal of a kidney to save a child. Can you pin down why the right to bodily integrity suddenly begins to supersede the right to life, in the case of a more surgical beating?

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

And my experience is that (yours and my) society doesn't permit either.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

You realise you've contradicted yourself?

In one sentence you're saying that it's okay for a person/society to compel a person to be beaten against their will, and in the next saying that society shouldn't permit random beatings.

There is no contradiction...and to be honest I'm surprised that you think that there is.

Nobody should be beaten against their will and no unborn child should be murdered.

However, if we're faced with the choice of inflicting beatings OR murdering unborn children, we should choose the former.

That doesn't make it okay to inflict beatings on people or to restrain and sedate pregnant women.

Jack Kyle

doctoremma wrote: »

Ok. So I think it's fair to say that our personal ethical systems are in opposition on this point. That is, of course, perfectly legitimate.

However, your response here is in opposition to your stance when the beating includes the removal of a kidney to save a child. Can you pin down why the right to bodily integrity suddenly begins to supersede the right to life, in the case of a more surgical beating?


And my experience is that (yours and my) society doesn't permit either.

Sorry Emma, out society doesn't permit either at the moment but there's a clamour for abortion (i.e. infanticide) to be permitted generally (i.e. in circumstances other than the Savita case and this recent Holles St case which were tragic but legitimate medical procedures).

aloyisious

@Jack-kyle: perverse as it may seem, I'm glad you haven't fecked off in a hissy-fit, as the purpose of a debate is to get one's point across, even if you don't change others opinions by doing so.

You probably won't succeed in getting most decided Pro-choicers (including me) to change their position and come across to your position that abortion is the murdering of a child. Your weak point is that you come across as a person who believe's that the life of the pregnant woman is secondary and has no real-time relevance compared to what you see as an all-important fact; the feotus in the woman's womb.

There's also the factor of the family members of the woman concerned. Try telling them that you believe that it's better that her life is put at further risk when it's already at risk for the sake of an unknown quantity; the feotus in her womb.

I believe for once people here have freely made up their own minds on the reality of the situation being faced by real-life people, in this case; pregnant women, and ignored the propaganda of the "uninterested".

Oh yes, and this is what I came back for, if the new law has not yet been put into effect (due to continuing discussion on the set-up of the Medico groups - Psychiatrists and Doctors - needed for it's use) then it seem's likely that (to some degree) the Savita-case arise's once again, as both the Dublin and Galway hospitals were faced with the same pre Law medical situation.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There is no contradiction...and to be honest I'm surprised that you think that there is.

Nobody should be beaten against their will and no unborn child should be murdered.

However, if we're faced with the choice of inflicting beatings OR murdering unborn children, we should choose the former.

That doesn't make it okay to inflict beatings on people or to restrain and sedate pregnant women.

There is a big contradiction in your reply to the question asked of you:

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?

You were asked a general question if you support the idea of compelling a person to take a beating against their will.

You replied yes to that question and then stated that society should not allow random beatings.

So either you misunderstood the question or you contradicted yourself.

Frito

Jack can we revisit your opinion that dependency must be maintained?
I've used an example where a donor can refuse donation of bone marrow (where a donation was previously made) thus illustrating a scenario where the recipients right-to-life does not supersede the donor's right to bodily integrity. Can you defend your opinion given this example?

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sorry Emma, out society doesn't permit either at the moment but there's a clamour for abortion (i.e. infanticide) to be permitted generally (i.e. in circumstances other than the Savita case and this recent Holles St case which were tragic but legitimate medical procedures).

For reference, I am in the UK. That probably adds a layer to my statement that you didn't predict. Neither the UK nor Irish governments allow infanticide or random beatings.

Any thoughts on your apparently inconsistent ranking of right to life and right to bodily integrity, based on whether the beating is with a baseball bat or a surgeons's knife?

I would echo Aloy, I am genuinely trying to explore this.

Jack Kyle

Frito wrote: »

Jack can we revisit your opinion that dependency must be maintained?
I've used an example where a donor can refuse donation of bone marrow (where a donation was previously made) thus illustrating a scenario where the recipients right-to-life does not supersede the donor's right to bodily integrity. Can you defend your opinion given this example?

Like all of these issues, but it's a difficult question.

That person should donate the bone marrow.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

There is a big contradiction in your reply to the question asked of you:



You were asked a general question if you support the idea of compelling a person to take a beating against their will.

You replied yes to that question and then stated that society should not allow random beatings.

So either you misunderstood the question or you contradicted yourself.

I think that it's you that are misunderstanding the issue.

Beating people is wrong and abortion is wrong.

However, if one must take or inflict a beating in order to stop the murder of a child, so be it.

I will not address this point again.

Jack Kyle

aloyisious wrote: »

@Jack-kyle: perverse as it may seem, I'm glad you haven't fecked off in a hissy-fit, as the purpose of a debate is to get one's point across, even if you don't change others opinions by doing so.

You probably won't succeed in getting most decided Pro-choicers (including me) to change their position and come across to your position that abortion is the murdering of a child. Your weak point is that you come across as a person who believe's that the life of the pregnant woman is secondary and has no real-time relevance compared to what you see as an all-important fact; the feotus in the woman's womb.

There's also the factor of the family members of the woman concerned. Try telling them that you believe that it's better that her life is put at further risk when it's already at risk for the sake of an unknown quantity; the feotus in her womb.

I believe for once people here have freely made up their own minds on the reality of the situation being faced by real-life people, in this case; pregnant women, and ignored the propaganda of the "uninterested".

Oh yes, and this is what I came back for, if the new law has not yet been put into effect (due to continuing discussion on the set-up of the Medico groups - Psychiatrists and Doctors - needed for it's use) then it seem's likely that (to some degree) the Savita-case arise's once again, as both the Dublin and Galway hospitals were faced with the same pre Law medical situation.

The rights of the woman are equal to the rights of the unborn child.

The Savita tragedy would not have happened in Dublin.

MrPudding

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Like all of these issues, but it's a difficult question.

That person should donate the bone marrow.

To the extent that they should be sedated, restrained and have the bone marrow extracted against their will?

MrP

Frito

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Like all of these issues, but it's a difficult question.

That person should donate the bone marrow.

My second question would then be should we compel them to donate.
My opinion would be that both legally and morally we cannot. It is my choice to help another, not my reason for being.

As an aside (I haven't considered this in great detail) but if a pro-life position maintains that we are morally obligated to help another person regardless of our choice, then what are the implications for foetal stem-cell research? ...if the foetus is not created for the purpose of research, but does indeed exist, then is a there a moral obligation to use the foetus for research? I don't expect a response to this, it may derail, but I think it's interesting.

Mr. CooL ICE

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The Savita tragedy would not have happened in Dublin.

Erm... what?

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The rights of the woman are equal to the rights of the unborn child.

The Savita tragedy would not have happened in Dublin.

However, a woman in Dublin died because she put the fetus she was carrying ahead of her own health - both died.

This is what you want women to do isn't jack - disregard their own health to protect a fetus.

32-year-old woman who had epilepsy. Discontinued anti-epilepsy drug lamotrigine in early pregnancy due to 'her interpretation of the risk of taking these drugs while pregnant.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21434

Considering:

Each year, 210 million women become pregnant, of whom 20 million will experience pregnancy-related illness and 500,000 will die as a result of the complications of pregnancy or childbirth

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/1/191.full

how can you state with certainty that a tragedy such as happened to Savita could categorically not have happened in Dublin?

Jack Kyle

LordChessington wrote: »

Erm... what?

I don't know why you're saying "Erm...what?" or why other posters are thanking you.

The Savita tragedy would not have happened in Dublin.

If you listened to people like Rhona Mahony in the media at the time of the tragedy, you'd know that she said that such medical procedures have taken place in Holles Street before. She rightly said that such a case is a medical case where religon and the law are secondary. She said that in such circumstances, she would consult with her senior colleagues and do what's right from a medical perspective.

The Savita tragedy was an advert for centres of excellence. "This is a Catholic country"...do you honestly think that you'd hear such drivel in Holles St? The tragedy wouldn't have happened. The likes of Mahony and Boylan would have consulted and proceeded on the basis of what's best for the patient.

What happened to that poor woman was a disgrace, an embarrassment to this country and an indictment of smaller rag tag substandard hospitals.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However, a woman in Dublin died because she put the fetus she was carrying ahead of her own health - both died.

This is what you want women to do isn't jack - disregard their own health to protect a fetus.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21434

Considering:
(QUOTE]Each year, 210 million women become pregnant, of whom 20 million will experience pregnancy-related illness and 500,000 will die as a result of the complications of pregnancy or childbirth

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/1/191.full

how can you state with certainty that a tragedy such as happened to Savita could categorically not have happened in Dublin?[/quote]

I should probably clarify that I mean The National Maternity Hospital.

Because I heard Rhona Mahony say so in an interview.

I'm deeply sceptical of hospitals and doctors outside of centres of excellence.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I don't know why you're saying "Erm...what?" or why other posters are thanking you.

The Savita tragedy would not have happened in Dublin.

If you listened to people like Rhona Mahony in the media at the time of the tragedy, you'd know that she said that such medical procedures have taken place in Holles Street before. She rightly said that such a case is a medical case where religon and the law are secondary. She said that in such circumstances, she would consult with her senior colleaugues and do what's right from a medical perspective.

The Savita tragedy was an advert for centres of excellence. "This is a Catholic country"...do you honestly think that you'd hear such drivel in Holles St? The tragedy wouldn't have happened. The likes of Mahony and Boylan would have consulted and proceeded on the basis of what's best for the patient.

What happened to that poor woman was a disgrace, an embarrassment to this country and an indictment of smaller rag tag substandard hospitals.

You said Dublin - not Holles St - is the Mater not in Dublin?

The Mater Hospital in Dublin is one of the country's major hospitals. It is a single member company of a parent company called the Mater Misericordiae and the Children's University Hospitals (Temple Street) Ltd. And the board of that company comprises the Sisters of Mercy and representatives of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, the Catholic Nurses' Guild of Ireland and the Catholic charity, the Society of St Vincent de Paul.

Last week we learned what the exclusion of the original requirement to provide termination in designated state hospitals means in practice. One of the board members of the Mater, a Fr Kevin Doran, said: "The Mater can't carry out abortions because it goes against its ethos".

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-hospitals-catholic-ethos-means-pregnant-women-are-still-at-risk-29489517.html

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/1/191.full


I should probably clarify that I mean The National Maternity Hospital.

Because I heard Rhona Mahony say so in an interview.

I'm deeply sceptical of hospitals and doctors outside of centres of excellence.

Then do you concede that a tragedy similar to that which happened to Savita could happen in Dublin in the Mater for example?

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You said Dublin - not Holles St - is the Mater not in Dublin?



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-hospitals-catholic-ethos-means-pregnant-women-are-still-at-risk-29489517.html

See above. I've already clarified that I meant the National Maternity Hospital.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

See above. I've already clarified that I meant the National Maternity Hospital.

How about you answer the question instead of dodging it?

The question was:

Then do you concede that a tragedy similar to that which happened to Savita could happen in Dublin in the Mater for example?

Jack Kyle

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the Mater is a maternity hospital?

I thought that it's basically, Holles St, The Rotunda, the Coombe and the odd private place like Mount Carmel?

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How about you answer the question instead of dodging it?

The question was:

Then do you concede that a tragedy similar to that which happened to Savita could happen in Dublin in the Mater for example?

How about you lose the attitude, stop posting in bold (i.e. shouting) and stop looking for arguments?

Manners cost nothing.

Afroshack

Jack I noticed you never responded to my post an hour ago. Just out of curiousity, what do you do to help already born children? Do you volunteer? Donate money to various charities? Donate blood and platelets? I'm also assuming you are a foster or adoptive parent, since you are so insistent on children being born whether their parents are able to care for them or not.

Jack Kyle

Afroshack wrote: »

Jack I noticed you never responded to my post an hour ago. Just out of curiousity, what do you do to help already born children? Do you volunteer? Donate money to various charities? Donate blood and platelets? I'm also assuming you are a foster or adoptive parent, since you are so insistent on children being born whether their parents are able to care for them or not.

Yes I do my bit.

And in case you didn't realise, there are more prospective adoptive parents that babies available.

You're a needy lot, aren't you...demanding answers to your every post without recognising that other posters have more than just a thread on Boards in their lives.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the Mater is a maternity hospital?

I thought that it's basically, Holles St, The Rotunda, the Coombe and the odd private place like Mount Carmel?

Tsk Tsk jack - you are still dodging the question.

Since when can abortions be carried out only in designated maternity hospitals?

Was Savita treated at a dedicated maternity hospital or a general hospital (albeit one with a maternity dept)?

The Mater is, apparently,

one of Ireland’s largest, busiest and most distinguished acute academic teaching hospitals. It plays a vital role in the provision of adult acute care services serving Dublin's north inner city as well as delivering national specialist and tertiary referral for the country

http://www.ucd.ie/medicine/lifewithus/ourcampus/clinicalcampus/matermisericordiaeuniversityhospitaldublin/

So a hospital which 'plays a vital role in the provision of adult acute care' if faced with a woman in Savita's position would refuse to perform an abortion

One of the board members of the Mater, a Fr Kevin Doran, said: "The Mater can't carry out abortions because it goes against its ethos".

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-hospitals-catholic-ethos-means-pregnant-women-are-still-at-risk-29489517.html

meaning a seriously ill woman would have to either a) die there or b) be transferred to Holles St while critically ill as the hospital set up to deal with acute issues refuses to do what is required to save her life.

Sooo jack - once again:

Then do you concede that a tragedy similar to that which happened to Savita could happen in Dublin in the Mater for example?

As for this comment of yours

How about you lose the attitude, stop posting in bold (i.e. shouting) and stop looking for arguments?

Internet Etiquette 101

THIS IS SHOUTING.
This is emphasis.

See the difference?

How about you address the questions posted in direct response to the comments you made and stop having hissy fits and slinging accusations when the questions put you on the spot?

Afroshack

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Yes I do my bit.

And in case you didn't realise, there are more prospective adoptive parents that babies available.

You're a needy lot, aren't you...demanding answers to your every post without recognising that other posters have more than just a thread on Boards in their lives.

There is no way that's true. If it was, there wouldn't be thousands of children in foster care in the UK and Ireland and hundreds of thousands of children living on the streets or in orphanages in Asia and Africa. If you are a white newborn without a disability you might stand a chance at being adopted but the children left on the sidelines will always outweigh the number of people adopting, otherwise there wouldn't a need for a foster care system. It's funny that you say babies too, you do realise that there are thousands of older children and teens left there too?

This is the one beef I really have with pro-lifers. They will call women murderers, guilt and shame them about abortions, protest and lobby their TD's until they are blue in the face about saving the lives of the unborn, but if it actually came to taking responsibility for said life once the child was born, they couldn't give a toss. It makes no sense to me at all, and really shows what a hypocritical movement the pro-life position is. I'd have far more respect for you Jack, despite your willingess to chain women down, if you had actually done something to improve the quality of these children's lives, instead of blowing hot air about murder and infantcide.