Abortion Discussion

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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,

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

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



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?

Don't flatter yourself.

I don't believe that it would happen in the Mater because it's not a maternity hospital so the unfortunate woman in question would be transferred to Holles Street, the Rotunda or the Coombe.

And I don't believe that it would happen in either of those three hospitals.

<SNIP>

Jack Kyle

Afroshack wrote: »

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.

I give plenty of sheckles to children's charities...I coach kids' teams...I helped to build houses in Africa. I volunteer in the little spare time I have to help families in chronic debt.

I suspect that I do a hell of a lot more than most.

Turtwig

The charitable donations of a poster are of no business to anyone. Please drop this line of personal inquiry and speculation.

Jack Kyle

The point is that "provincial" hospitals offer more opportunity for gombeen medical professionals to run riot.

They're an advert for centres of excellence.

What happened to Savita was a disgrace. She had a medical issue that HAD to be attended to. Abortion, morality or the law shouldn't have come into it. They said as much at the time on the national airwaves.

Had she been in the National Maternity Hospital, the consultants would have discussed her case and given her the treatment she needed.

And we as a nation wouldn't have had the shameful gombeenery of some misguided soul telling a distressed family that "this is a Catholic country".

If you don't think that the fact this happened outside of Dublin was a factor, you're very naive.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Don't flatter yourself.

I don't believe that it would happen in the Mater because it's not a maternity hospital so the unfortunate woman in question would be transferred to Holles Street, the Rotunda or the Coombe.

And I don't believe that it would happen in either of those three hospitals.

<SNIP>

How am I flattering myself?

You said the Savita tragedy would not happen in Dublin - I called you on that by I pointing out that a woman presenting at the designated hospital for acute adult cases in North Dublin would be refused an emergency abortion in the same way Savita was- emergencies being one of their target areas - but would look to transfer her. Given the virulent form of sepsis Savita developed the delay in her treatment lead to her death. Yet here you are admitting the Mater would delay the treatment of a women with the same symptoms as Savita. A delay that could well prove fatal.

By the way - What about the woman I mentioned who died at the Rotunda because she stopped taking her epilepsy medication in the belief that it would damage the fetus - you never did say if you agreed with her decision to put her own life at risk to protect the unborn.

'I don't believe' is not the same as 'could not happen' by the way.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The point is that "provincial" hospitals offer more opportunity for gombeen medical professionals to run riot.

They're an advert for centres of excellence.

What happened to Savita was a disgrace. She had a medical issue that HAD to be attended to. Abortion, morality or the law shouldn't have come into it. They said as much at the time on the national airwaves.

Had she been in the National Maternity Hospital, the consultants would have discussed her case and given her the treatment she needed.

And we as a nation wouldn't have had the shameful gombeenery of some misguided soul telling a distressed family that "this is a Catholic country".

If you don't think that the fact this happened outside of Dublin was a factor, you're very naive.

Well, silly Savita for going to a 'designated supra regional centre' rather than driving across the country.
Obviously she died as she didn't understand that healthcare in Culchiland is still in the Stone Age and the 'doctors' are really just barbers with illusions of grandeur who never set foot in a university in their lives.

Henceforth all children in Ireland must be born in Dublin in case they get a gombeen doctor intent on running riot. It's the only way.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, silly Savita for going to a 'designated supra regional centre' rather than driving across the country.
Obviously she died as she didn't understand that healthcare in Culchiland is still in the Stone Age and the 'doctors' are really just barbers with illusions of grandeur who never set foot in a university in their lives.

Henceforth all children in Ireland must be born in Dublin in case they get a gombeen doctor intent on running riot. It's the only way.

Or maybe all of our citizens/residents should have access to Holles St standards of care...

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Or maybe all of our citizens/residents should have access to Holles St standards of care...

Well, we agree on something.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

So you think this should be done to the 12 women a day that leave Ireland to go and have an abortion?

You wish for the right to travel for irish women to be based on if they are pregant or not?

Jack Kyle

Morag wrote: »

So you think this should be done to the 12 women a day that leave Ireland to go and have an abortion?

You wish for the right to travel for irish women to be based on if they are pregant or not?

We can't legislate for what goes on outside of Ireland.

We should educate them that there are other options (e.g. putting the baby up for adoption rather than murdering it).

However, if we KNOW that they've leaving for an abortion, then perhaps they should be stopped.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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

Only "as far as practicable" as per the 8th amendment, my right to life is not trumped by the right to life of the unborn and my right to travel is not trumped by the right to life of the unborn.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The Savita tragedy would not have happened in Dublin.

What makes you think that?

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

We can't legislate for what goes on outside of Ireland.

We should educate them that there are other options (e.g. putting the baby up for adoption rather than murdering it).

Do you really think that women who travel to have an abortion are ignorant of the supports if they continue the pregnancy and of adoption?

Putting the baby up for adoption does not resolve the fact that pregnancy has health risks, and is a very public affair esp in the last trimester.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

However, if we KNOW that they've leaving for an abortion, then perhaps they should be stopped.

So you would be in favour of revoking the right to travel which was granted in the 1992 referendum?

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

We can't legislate for what goes on outside of Ireland.

We should educate them that there are other options (e.g. putting the baby up for adoption rather than murdering it).

However, if we KNOW that they've leaving for an abortion, then perhaps they should be stopped.

...the oul emotional lingo is great for a bit of provocation isn't it?

The issue of travel has already been decided.

Morag

So Jack Kyle if you consider abortion to be the murdering of a child, are women who have had an abortion there fore unfit to be mother's to other children?

Should if it is know a woman has had an abortion and has children or goes on to have children should she be reported to social services?

Should those children be removed from her care as she has already murdered a child?

dharma200

Council and educate, and if that doesn't work tie her up..... Lololllololl

Fortunately women now are very educated as to their options and reproductive rights, can find out information on how to access these rights quite easily.... I look forward to your 'curriculum' and counciling methods, and I would suggest they are not too far removed from evangelical right wing so called pro life groups abroad who intimidate and frighten, threaten and coerce women into trapped and forced pregnancy, perhaps tieing the women up is a natural progression, like your man fritzl et al .. Bind the, up for a good few months, force feed them perhaps using a nasal tube? All the while playing pro life propaganda you tube videos....

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

However, if we KNOW that they've leaving for an abortion, then perhaps they should be stopped.

That's what they tried to do in the X Case. That didn't exactly turn out well now did it?

Irish State in attempt to force 15 year old rape victim to continue with pregnancy - if she hadn't miscarried should they have restrained and sedated her while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in her favour?

Jack Kyle

I'd love to see a breakdown of that "12 a day" average figure.

How many are rape victims? Probably a tiny fraction.

How many are destitute? Probably a tiny fraction, given they've the cash to travel.

How many are either promiscuous or "career women" using infanticide as a form of contraception or a lifestyle choice? Probably a lot.

That's one of the great myths of this debate. For the pro-abortion side, it's all about rape and incest victims or one in a million rare disease victims.

The reality in the main is the regretful Copper Face Jacks slut or career woman who can do what she wants with little or no accountability now that society permits abortion. Is that feminism? Being able to fornicate without the consequences faced by your ancestors? Being able to use the murder of unborn babies as a substitute for a condom?

In my view abortion debases women more than any Magdalene Laundry ever did.

dharma200

Lol.. How many are pregnant and don't want to be.... Obviously all of them.... Case closed.. Or you could stand at the boarding gates of Ryan air with some rope and a white van parked outside....

dharma200

Ill be in copper faced jacks with my legs spread just begin to get pregnant so I can get a holiday over in Manchester before I embark on my career.. Man jack you have it all Sussed don't cha lololollll....

Jack Kyle

Morag wrote: »

Do you really think that women who travel to have an abortion are ignorant of the supports if they continue the pregnancy and of adoption?

Putting the baby up for adoption does not resolve the fact that pregnancy has health risks, and is a very public affair esp in the last trimester.



So you would be in favour of revoking the right to travel which was granted in the 1992 referendum?

Now you are sounding like someone from a bygone era.

Is the "shame" of being noticeably pregnant reason to murder a child?

Nobody is saying that a baby's right to life trumps a mother's right to life.

However, in my view a baby's right to life trumps a mother's right to bodily integrity or to travel.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

In my view abortion debases women more than any Magdalene Laundry ever did.

Really jack?

Do you want to go and tell that to the women who were in the laundries?

Look them in the eye jack and tell them that. I dare you. Tell them how it was better that they were used as slave labour. Go on jack. Have the courage of your internet convictions. Solidarity for the Magdalene's have a facebook page - you could put up a post there telling women how much better off they were because they did not have abortions. I'm sure they would appreciate that.

As for your comment about the 'Copper Face Jacks slut' (presumably no man was equally slutty) -about whom you are so dismissive - you think this 'slut' as you so charmingly put it would be a suitable mother then?

Still waiting to hear if you thought that epileptic did the right thing.

Jack Kyle

dharma200 wrote: »

Lol.. How many are pregnant and don't want to be.... Obviously all of them.... Case closed.. Or you could stand at the boarding gates of Ryan air with some rope and a white van parked outside....

The point is that all of these discussions focus on rape victims or similar, when the reality is irresponsible women (and men) using the murder of unborn children as a form of contraception.

Whether it suits these women or not to be pregnant is irrelevant! Human life now exists in their wombs, so whether their careers or social lives are inconvenienced shouldn't matter a damn. The right of the unborn baby to life trumps their mickey mouse rights which are inconvenienced while the child is brought to term.

dharma200

Ok jack you have made your point here over and over again and it really isn't adding anything to this debate. You feel women should be tied up and forced to have babies they don't want to have... Your posts are more and more insulting and you are sounding and behaving very troll like. The copper faced jack slut etc etc magdalene laundries posts are actually becoming more and more offensive. G away and wave a placard somewhere would you.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really jack?

Do you want to go and tell that to the women who were in the laundries?

Look them in the eye jack and tell them that. I dare you. Tell them how it was better that they were used as slave labour. Go on jack. Have the courage of your internet convictions. Solidarity for the Magdalene's have a facebook page - you could put up a post there telling women how much better off they were because they did not have abortions. I'm sure they would appreciate that.

As for your comment about the 'Copper Face Jacks slut' (presumably no man was equally slutty) -about whom you are so dismissive - you think this 'slut' as you so charmingly put it would be a suitable mother then?

Still waiting to hear if you thought that epileptic did the right thing.

The epileptic did the right thing.

The woman and the man are equally culpable in unwanted pregnancy scenarios. The man should be forced to stand by her and to pony up whatever cash is required.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'd love to see a breakdown of that "12 a day" average figure.

How many are rape victims? Probably a tiny fraction.

How many are destitute? Probably a tiny fraction, given they've the cash to travel.

How many are either promiscuous or "career women" using infanticide as a form of contraception or a lifestyle choice? Probably a lot.

That's one of the great myths of this debate. For the pro-abortion side, it's all about rape and incest victims or one in a million rare disease victims.

The reality in the main is the regretful Copper Face Jacks slut or career woman who can do what she wants with little or no accountability now that society permits abortion. Is that feminism? Being able to fornicate without the consequences faced by your ancestors? Being able to use the murder of unborn babies as a substitute for a condom?

In my view abortion debases women more than any Magdalene Laundry ever did.

Some of them are women who already have children and do not want any more or can not cope with having any more due to financial concerns or already having a special needs child.

Given the number of women who have come forward as part of the Terminations For Medical Reasons over the last 18 months it is certainly not 1 in a million.

Also women who can't afford to travel can get some help from the Abortion support network but most are ordering abortion pills online as it's less then a 100 euro.

ah so abortion is feminism fault? You are very quick to make assumptions about the type of women who have abortions, but I doubt some how you will take on board the date released by the IFPA and BPAS http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/YouTube-Video

Afroshack

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'd love to see a breakdown of that "12 a day" average figure.

How many are rape victims? Probably a tiny fraction.

How many are destitute? Probably a tiny fraction, given they've the cash to travel.

How many are either promiscuous or "career women" using infanticide as a form of contraception or a lifestyle choice? Probably a lot.

That's one of the great myths of this debate. For the pro-abortion side, it's all about rape and incest victims or one in a million rare disease victims.

The reality in the main is the regretful Copper Face Jacks slut or career woman who can do what she wants with little or no accountability now that society permits abortion. Is that feminism? Being able to fornicate without the consequences faced by your ancestors? Being able to use the murder of unborn babies as a substitute for a condom?

In my view abortion debases women more than any Magdalene Laundry ever did.

Ah Jack, as an expert on all things reproductive, surely you know that condoms have a small failure rate?

I'm presuming it's the female that you are calling the slut then too? What if a man and a woman make the decision to abort together? Would you be in favour of restraining him too? Calling him a regretful baby-murdering slut? It's always the women who takes the sh*t off pro-life folk.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Now you are sounding like someone from a bygone era.

Is the "shame" of being noticeably pregnant reason to murder a child?

Nobody is saying that a baby's right to life trumps a mother's right to life.

However, in my view a baby's right to life trumps a mother's right to bodily integrity or to travel.

Given the history of adoption and for adoption in this country we have a long way to go before adoption is a more valid option for many and still even if that was the case we would still have women who do not want to be pregnant so adoption is a solution to an unwanted child but not to an unwanted pregnancy.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The epileptic did the right thing.

The woman and the man are equally culpable in unwanted pregnancy scenarios. The man should be forced to stand by her and to pony up whatever cash is required.

The epileptic died jack - so did the fetus- what about all the children she will now never have due to being dead for no good reason?

Ponying up cash doesn't really equate to allowing your body to be used to sustain the life of another now does it. Ponying up cash is easy - perhaps all men should be made to do as these guys did

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtR_-MINR1o

For at least 12 hours - then the scalpel comes out....


Oh, how lucky a child would be to be brought into this world by a 'slut' who is refused an abortion so is restrained and sedated and a man who is forced (will he be restrained and sedated too?) to 'stand by her'.
It's like a fairy story - by Edger Allen Poe.

Pherekydes

Jack Kyle wrote: »

How many are either promiscuous or "career women" ...

Copper Face Jacks slut ...

...or career woman ...

Is that feminism?

...fornicate...

Showing your true colours now...

Jack Kyle

The men are just as culpable in a "we had a drunken knee trembler, let's hop on the boat and have the baby murdered" scenario, which I'd venture is the typical abortion scenario.

Rape victims are much cited but virtually non existent.