Abortion Discussion

28064212

Jernal wrote: »

Why not gouge out their eyes?

Hey, we could extend it further. Instead of jailing thieves, we could chop off their hand.... Wait, that sounds sort of familiar...

Jack Kyle

Jernal wrote: »

Why not gouge out their eyes?

That's just facetious.

Removal of their uteri matches the punishment and the crime perfectly.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's a better and more considered punishment than just jailing them.

No it's not. It's extremely inhumane. The woman may have an abortion but still want to have kids a point later in life. To say they are undeserving of the choice to have children ever because they had an abortion is beyond the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

No one should ever be subjected to medical procedures against their will, or blackmailed into them as you are suggesting.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

No it's not. It's extremely inhumane. The woman may have an abortion but still want to have kids a point later in life. To say they are undeserving of the choice to have children ever because they had an abortion is beyond the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

No one should ever be subjected to medical procedures against their will, or blackmailed into them as you are suggesting.

Sounds like a la carte motherhood.

On the one hand they want to kill the babies inside them but on the other they want to create and nurture life.

Sounds like having one's cake and eating it.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Why not gouge out their eyes?

Feck that for namby pamby bleeding heart liberal PC wishy washy etc etc - take 'em outside the city walls and stone them to death.



Then castrate who ever got them pregnant in case they get someone else pregnant.

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Feck that for namby pamby bleeding heart liberal PC wishy washy etc etc - take 'em outside the city walls and stone them to death.



Then castrate who ever got them pregnant in case they get someone else pregnant.

B-b-but that's misandry! That's [screeching accent]evil, PC misandry![/screeching accent].

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sounds like a la carte motherhood.

On the one hand they want to kill the babies inside them but on the other they want to create and nurture life.

Sounds like having one's cake and eating it.

So if a woman gets pregnant at 19 and knows she isn't ready to be a mother, the government should stop her from being a mother at 30?

As I said, it's incredibly inhumane.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

So if a woman gets pregnant at 19 and knows she isn't ready to be a mother, that the government should stop her from being a mother at 30?

As I said, it's incredibly inhumane.

Put the child up for adoption rather than killing it (and keep your uterus).

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Put the child up for adoption rather than killing it (and keep your uterus).

why should the woman be required to carry the pregnancy to term to avoid the government forcibly removing her uterus? This is not the behaviour of a civilised society.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I was reflecting on this earlier today and the various posts both for and against the punishment of women who have abortions. I'm obviously staunchly opposed to abortion in all but circumstances like the Savita case. I believe that the woman's life and the baby's life equal. With the caveat that I have pretty conservative views, how about this for a potential solution? If a woman elects to have an abortion, what if we were to make it compulsory for her to also have a hysterectomy? Not as extreme as incarcerating women and mothers, but make the loss of their ability to have children in the future the quid pro quo for what many like me view as the murder of a child. Extreme? Yes. Controversial? Absolutely. Effective? Perhaps. Salient point being that a woman who cares so little for life should perhaps lose the ability to create it. And before the left scream "troll", this is a legitimate and thought out proposal.

What you are proposing falls in line with the myth that women who have abortions do not ever want to have children or do not already have children.

By that rational if they already have children should those children not be taken into care?

Are you aware of the over impact of a hysterectomy on women, physically, endocrinly mentally, emotionally? Would you suggest that men who have supported their partners having an abortion have thier testicles removed?

Would you really tell the men and women who had late term abortions who are part of the Terminations For Medical Reasons groups they should not be able to try again for another child?

Would you honestly tell Arlette Lyons and her family that she and they should be punished after she travels with her husband to Liverpool with a hysterectomy and the daughter which she recently had should not have happened?


Personally I think what you are suggesting is abhorrent, I had an abortion when I was in my late teens and later on when I was finished college and working I went on to start my family and have now two teenage children.

Why don't you suggest and campaign towards that all men have the option for getting RISUG for free?

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Put the child up for adoption rather than killing it (and keep your uterus).

Adoption is a solution to an unwanted child not undergoing an unwanted pregnancy.

Corkfeen

Jack Kyle wrote: »

That's just facetious.

Removal of their uteri matches the punishment and the crime perfectly.

Seriously, you appear to want to operate a justice system in a Shakespearean fashion. You also don't seem to understand that the debate is far more nuanced than you're willing to acknowledge.

Do you support cutting off the hands of thieves? If so, I can recommend holiday locations.

dharma200

Oh gawd jacks back.... Sure he wanted women tied down and held captive to stop them accessing abortions lol. Nice..

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I was reflecting on this earlier today and the various posts both for and against the punishment of women who have abortions. I'm obviously staunchly opposed to abortion in all but circumstances like the Savita case. I believe that the woman's life and the baby's life equal. With the caveat that I have pretty conservative views, how about this for a potential solution? If a woman elects to have an abortion, what if we were to make it compulsory for her to also have a hysterectomy? Not as extreme as incarcerating women and mothers, but make the loss of their ability to have children in the future the quid pro quo for what many like me view as the murder of a child. Extreme? Yes. Controversial? Absolutely. Effective? Perhaps. Salient point being that a woman who cares so little for life should perhaps lose the ability to create it. And before the left scream "troll", this is a legitimate and thought out proposal.

Personally, I think the problem is what happens to the babies if a woman doesn't want them after they're born. You advocate adoption, but it's not a great solution. Many of the children don't get adopted and end up in foster care. I think before condemning abortions, you need to figure out what the alternative is going to be.

Cabaal

Jack, so you think adaption is the way forward instead?

Can I ask, are you ok with a gay couple adopting that child?

Morag

Leaving aside the moral issues and medical ethical quandires about Jack Kyle's notion, as it stands between 2,500 and 3,000 hysterectomies are carried out in Ireland every year, and we know that about 4,300 Irish women travel every year to the Uk for abortion. The HSE would not have the capacity to preform that many and I very much doubt medical insurance would allow for it.

The Black Oil

Always amuses me how certain people of a conservative persuasion absolutely hate the state, and then advocate this kind of rubbish. Essentially, live by our code or GTFO.

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

B-b-but that's misandry! That's [screeching accent]evil, PC misandry![/screeching accent].

Nooo - think about it. I think I may have happened upon the solution - compulsory reversible vasectomies to be performed on every male as soon as they become capable of impregnating a female.

Once the male has proven he is fit to 'bring a child into this world' - the vasectomy can be reversed.

Failure to comply to result in castration.

Snip Snip Jack - you willing to go first?

Jack Kyle

Cabaal wrote: »

Jack, so you think adaption is the way forward instead?

Can I ask, are you ok with a gay couple adopting that child?

I'm not ignoring your question. I'm just choosing not to answer it because this thread's not about the adoption of children by homosexuals.

How do the siblings of aborted children feel about the brothers/sisters that they never had because their parents made the lifestyle choice to exterminate them?

Also, I'm not talking about the forcible removal of these women's uteri. That would be barbaric. My suggestion is that if abortions are being offered to women, the quid pro quo is that their uteri are extracted. Before people hurl term like eugenics etc around the place, there probably would be benefits to society on foot of the above. I would be very surprised if crime rates and social problems aren't greater among the offspring of those who abort babies as a form of contraception. By effectively uprooting their family trees, it's arguable that society would benefit.

Again, this is extreme stuff admittedly but it's been thought out and is not without logic and merit. The pro-abortion side will never see the error of their ways though.

Delirium

Wrap it up however you like but you're forcing women to have their uterus removed if they want an abortion.

jill_valentine

Morag wrote: »

Are you aware of the over impact of a hysterectomy on women, physically, endocrinly mentally, emotionally?

I'm going to go out on a crazy limb here and suggest that no, he knows very little about hysterectomies.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Also, I'm not talking about the forcible removal of these women's uteri. That would be barbaric. My suggestion is that if abortions are being offered to women, the quid pro quo is that their uteri are extracted. Before people hurl term like eugenics etc around the place, there probably would be benefits to society on foot of the above..

Pull the other one.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I would be very surprised if crime rates and social problems aren't greater among the offspring of those who abort babies as a form of contraception. By effectively uprooting their family trees, it's arguable that society would benefit.
.

Back that up please.

Jack Kyle

Nodin wrote: »

Pull the other one.


Back that up please.

It's a well known concept called the Donohue Levitt Hypothesis.

Feel free to Google it.

Basically, abortion was legalised in the US in the early 70s, most crimes in the US are committed by males aged 18-24 and in the late 80s/early 90s the crime rate started to drop for some unknown reason. These guys hypothesised that it's because future criminals started being aborted 18-24 years earlier.

Interesting stuff.

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'm not ignoring your question. I'm just choosing not to answer it because this thread's not about the adoption of children by homosexuals.

How do the siblings of aborted children feel about the brothers/sisters that they never had because their parents made the lifestyle choice to exterminate them?

Also, I'm not talking about the forcible removal of these women's uteri. That would be barbaric. My suggestion is that if abortions are being offered to women, the quid pro quo is that their uteri are extracted. Before people hurl term like eugenics etc around the place, there probably would be benefits to society on foot of the above. I would be very surprised if crime rates and social problems aren't greater among the offspring of those who abort babies as a form of contraception. By effectively uprooting their family trees, it's arguable that society would benefit.

Again, this is extreme stuff admittedly but it's been thought out and is not without logic and merit. The pro-abortion side will never see the error of their ways though.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Personally, I think the problem is what happens to the babies if a woman doesn't want them after they're born. You advocate adoption, but it's not a great solution. Many of the children don't get adopted and end up in foster care. I think before condemning abortions, you need to figure out what the alternative is going to be.

Just in case you didn't see it

lazygal

Jack what should men who support their partner in a decision to terminate have to undergo? Sterilisation? The removal of sperm producing organs? Castration?

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's a well known concept called the Donohue Levitt Hypothesis.

Feel free to Google it.

Basically, abortion was legalised in the US in the early 70s, most crimes in the US are committed by males aged 18-24 and in the late 80s/early 90s the crime rate started to drop for some unknown reason. These guys hypothesised that it's because future criminals started being aborted 18-24 years earlier.

Interesting stuff.

You seem to be confusing the abortion of unwanted pregnancy with every pregnancy had by the same female.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

Just in case you didn't see it

Why are hundreds of families forced to go to other countries each year to source children to adopt?

Because there's a serious shortage of babies.

Doctor Strange

Please tell me we're being Poe'd here.

Nodin

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Please tell me we're being Poe'd here.

I'd imagine so.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Why are hundreds of families forced to go to other countries each year to source children to adopt?

Because there's a serious shortage of babies.

Would you care to address the hole in your Donohue-Levitt plot....?