Abortion Discussion

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

So if you cant breath, does that mean you have no right to life ?

I can play this game* too:

"So if you can't armadillo, does that mean you have no right to life ?"

*i.e. the one of inserting random nouns where verbs should be.

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

*snicker

Since when is it anti-male to think women should have control over their own bodies?

Since about 100 AH for muslims, for christians about 550 BC.

Of course there are quite a few members of both religions who have given up that nonsense and allow women equal rights.

Nodin

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Since about 100 AH for muslims, for christians about 550 BC.

Of course there are quite a few members of both religions who have given up that nonsense and allow women equal rights.

...bloody liberals.....

Brian Shanahan

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No you do not!

That's the salient point. If you've agreed to be hooked up to a donee and a dependent relationship has been created you do not have the right to withdraw consent.

Someone must stand up for the unborn child. This is not a women's issue.

All I'm hearing is :

Wir müssen die Frauen auszurotten

Honestly, as I mentioned before your writings give off a definite whiff of National Socialism.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you've agreed to be hooked up to a donee and a dependent relationship has been created you do not have the right to withdraw consent.

A) That's just, like, your opinion.

Why don't you have the right to withdraw consent?

Jack Kyle

Obliq wrote: »

What if you haven't agreed? You miss this point again and again. If I get pregnant against my wishes, I HAVE NOT AGREED to have a baby. As I am a woman, that would be my issue to decide and nobody elses.

If you're sexually active on a consensual basis, you have "agreed" to have a baby.

But before the pro abortion lobby start screaming about rape victims, how does one protect the innocent child of a rapist/rape victim?

These are the great questions of our time.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you're sexually active on a consensual basis, you have "agreed" to have a baby.

But before the pro abortion lobby start screaming about rape victims, how does one protect the innocent child of a rapist/rape victim?

These are the great questions of our time.

That's nonsense. Not everyone has sex with the goal of having a baby.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you're sexually active on a consensual basis, you have "agreed" to have a baby.

But before the pro abortion lobby start screaming about rape victims, how does one protect the innocent child of a rapist/rape victim?

These are the great questions of our time.

Absolute utter drivel. If you have sex, you haven't agreed to automatically have a baby. Consensual or otherwise.

How would you protect the rape victim, Jack? Could you explain that to us again? Make your position clear just so we have the measure of what exactly you stand for?

Sarky

Jack, do you have anything new? Trying the same old arguments that we've shot down before isn't likely to do anything.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you're sexually active on a consensual basis, you have "agreed" to have a baby.

No you absolutely haven't! Christ!!

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you're sexually active on a consensual basis, you have "agreed" to have a baby..

Nope. It would help if you thought things through a bit more.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

But before the pro abortion lobby start screaming about rape victims, how does one protect the innocent child of a rapist/rape victim?.

It's not a child.

What about the rape victim?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

If you're sexually active on a consensual basis, you have "agreed" to have a baby.

{...}

By that logic, every time you cross the road, you have "agreed" to get hit by a car.

iwantmydinner

Nodin wrote: »

What about the rape victim?

+ 1,000

Jack Kyle

Sarky wrote: »

Jack, do you have anything new? Trying the same old arguments that we've shot down before isn't likely to do anything.

Sarky, you haven't shot anything down.

Jesus Christ...posters are advocating abortion as a method of contraception and other posters are thanking them.

Sorry Folks, but if you're having sex there's a chance that you'll end up a parent. The answer isn't to terminate the child.

Despicable stuff.

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sarky, you haven't shot anything down.

Jesus Christ...posters are advocating abortion as a method of contraception and other posters are thanking them.

Sorry Folks, but if you're having sex there's a chance that you'll end up a parent. The answer isn't to terminate the child.

Despicable stuff.

Ha! You're really not coming across that well Jack. Any anti-abortion supporters reading this thread will see exactly how deliberately obtuse you are being. What posts are advocating abortion as a method of contraception? I remember clearly saying "getting pregnant despite all efforts to the contrary", which means using contraception and having it fail (as happens regularly).

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Jesus Christ...posters are advocating abortion as a method of contraception and other posters are thanking them.

I'm saying abortion is a method of aborting a pregnancy. The clue is in the name.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sorry Folks, but if you're having sex there's a chance that you'll end up a parent. The answer isn't to terminate the child.

It is, if you don't want to be a parent.

Sarky

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sarky, you haven't shot anything down.

Not lately, no, I've been busy having loads of consensual sex where nobody involved agreed to get pregnant. Some times even with a second person who didn't agree to get pregnant either!

But all the hysterical nonsense you post is nothing new, and it's been shown up for the drivel it is countless times on this thread, and the thread before it. You're dead wrong on this, and you have absolutely no interest in stopping being dead wrong.

Jesus Christ...posters are advocating abortion as a method of contraception and other posters are thanking them.

You'll be more than able to link to a dozen examples if this is the case. Off you go.

Sorry Folks, but if you're having sex there's a chance that you'll end up a parent. The answer isn't to terminate the child.

Despicable stuff.

You advocate restraining women and forcing them to endure something awful. And you have the gall to call those of us asking for her basic human rights to be respected despicable?

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sarky, you haven't shot anything down.

Jesus Christ...posters are advocating abortion as a method of contraception and other posters are thanking them.

Sorry Folks, but if you're having sex there's a chance that you'll end up a parent. The answer isn't to terminate the child.

Despicable stuff.

can you provide evidence of this claim?

Jack Kyle

There's a distinct lack of logical thought in this thread.

Having sex with or without contraception can lead to pregnancy...the only difference is probability. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be having sex.

And if you have sex with the intention of having an abortion if you get pregnant, well then you're using abortion as a form of contraception (essentially as a back up).

You're looking for evidence of what's there for all to see in recent posts...what's that all about?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There's a distinct lack of logical thought in this thread.

Having sex with or without contraception can lead to pregnancy...the only difference is probability. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be having sex.

And if you have sex with the intention of having an abortion if you get pregnant, well then you're using abortion as a form of contraception (essentially as a back up).

There's a distinct lack of logical thought in your post.

Having sex cake with or without contraception coffee can lead to pregnancy death...the only difference is probability. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be having sex cake.

Probability matters.

MrPudding

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There's a distinct lack of logical thought in this thread.

ONly in your posts friend.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Having sex with or without contraception can lead to pregnancy...the only difference is probability. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be having sex.

This is a great example of the lack of logic in your posts. Taking part in a partiuclar act does not necessarily equate to acceptance of all possible outcomes of that act.

If you go to a restaurant for a meal do you accept that you might get food poisioning and die? No? Why not? You knew it was a possibility when when you sat down...

What about when you walk in town at night? If you get beaten up and hospitalised I assume you are ok with that as you have accepted the risk?

We each take part in many activities that have various possible consequences. That does not mean we necessarily consent to all of those consequences. Further, when it come to things that effect us directly, or impact our body, we can generally withdraw consent.

Your attitude stinks of punishing the sluts.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

And if you have sex with the intention of having an abortion if you get pregnant, well then you're using abortion as a form of contraception (essentially as a back up).

This is utter rubbish.

MrP

Turtwig

I don't quite understand why it's so hard to acknowledge that some people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having a child and THEN they find out that their pregancy is going to be anything but pleasant.
Woman in her late 20 get's pregnant. She's really looking forward to being a mother then she finds out she's a severe form of rheumatoid arthritis for which to ease her discomfort she's given a combination of enbrel and the doctors would wish, methorexate. But there's a problem. The latter is effectively an abortion pill but without it she'll suffer excruciating pain. Now the difference here Jack is do you want that woman to have the choice of deciding to go endure the torture of pregnancy (and possibly life long consequences to health) or do you want to just force her through with the pregnancy regardless of her own opinion? Especially when given her health and age there's a high chance of a miscarriage anyway. Enbrel btw, also compromises her immune system so added to to the already compromised immune system of being pregnant even a common cold could cause her severe discomfort.

The abortion debate isn't just the simple black and white picture of abortion = contraception that you wish to paint it to be. Woman are biological entities and when they get pregnant stuff happens to their body that isn't always good or pleasant. Stuff that they may or they may not have anticipated. When it happens though is it right to insist that no matter what they must proceed with the pregnancy? I certainly think that it's not.

Obliq

Well put Jernal. In my 40's now and I don't plan on giving up sex anytime soon (or ever). My fella wants no children, I have two already and both in their teens. I have arthritis in my hands that is excruciating from time to time - so much so that I would have trouble changing a nappy or picking up a baby. I am no longer an ideal parent for a baby, but according to the likes of Jack, ANY parent no matter how badly off, how poor of health, how definite in their mind that they don't want to have a child HAS to follow through with a pregnancy as a consequence of enjoying (what's left, in my case!) of their body in the physical company of someone else's. Sigh. What a crappy ideology to hold.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Sarky, you haven't shot anything down.

Jesus Christ...posters are advocating abortion as a method of contraception and other posters are thanking them.

Sorry Folks, but if you're having sex there's a chance that you'll end up a parent. The answer isn't to terminate the child.

.

Its not a child.

Its not The answer,but maybe an answer is certain situations.

Nodin

Obliq wrote: »

Well put Jernal. In my 40's now and I don't plan on giving up sex anytime soon (or ever). My fella wants no children, I have two already and both in their teens. I have arthritis in my hands that is excruciating from time to time - so much so that I would have trouble changing a nappy or picking up a baby. .

It's probably hard enough throttling the teens, god love ye.

aloyisious

Morag wrote: »

I've seen it and I got the chance to talk to Dr Sella Friday evening at a Speak out event the Abortion Rights Campgain had organized. She is a very interesting person, it was her first ever visit to Ireland and we talked about the way care and access in the USA very much depends if you can travel and have the money much like for Irish women and while the women she see's haven't have to leave the country they live in but it can be just as difficult.

She was interviewed by Pat Kenny as one of 4 drs who do late term abortions in the whole of the USA.
http://www.newstalk.ie/player/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Highlights/34085/2/Dr._Shelley_Sella_-_late_term_abortions[/QUOTE]

excellent interview.

Edit: The notion (posted today) that the only reason that ALL humans have sex is for procreation is ludicrous. The mention of child rape is (IMO) too close to current affairs to be used in this debate.

swampgas

Nodin wrote: »

Its not a child.

Its not The answer,but maybe an answer is certain situations.

Good luck getting that message across. Seems to be impossible for some (such as Jack Kyle here) to comprehend the difference between an embryo, a foetus, a baby, and a child. When I hear the word child I pretty much imagine somebody old enough for school.

Jack Kyle

Obliq wrote: »

Well put Jernal. In my 40's now and I don't plan on giving up sex anytime soon (or ever). My fella wants no children, I have two already and both in their teens. I have arthritis in my hands that is excruciating from time to time - so much so that I would have trouble changing a nappy or picking up a baby. I am no longer an ideal parent for a baby, but according to the likes of Jack, ANY parent no matter how badly off, how poor of health, how definite in their mind that they don't want to have a child HAS to follow through with a pregnancy as a consequence of enjoying (what's left, in my case!) of their body in the physical company of someone else's. Sigh. What a crappy ideology to hold.

Serious question(s) - Why don't you get sterilised or why doesn't your "fella" have a vasectomy?

Jack Kyle

Jernal wrote: »

I don't quite understand why it's so hard to acknowledge that some people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having a child and THEN they find out that their pregancy is going to be anything but pleasant.
Woman in her late 20 get's pregnant. She's really looking forward to being a mother then she finds out she's a severe form of rheumatoid arthritis for which to ease her discomfort she's given a combination of enbrel and the doctors would wish, methorexate. But there's a problem. The latter is effectively an abortion pill but without it she'll suffer excruciating pain. Now the difference here Jack is do you want that woman to have the choice of deciding to go endure the torture of pregnancy (and possibly life long consequences to health) or do you want to just force her through with the pregnancy regardless of her own opinion? Especially when given her health and age there's a high chance of a miscarriage anyway. Enbrel btw, also compromises her immune system so added to to the already compromised immune system of being pregnant even a common cold could cause her severe discomfort.

The abortion debate isn't just the simple black and white picture of abortion = contraception that you wish to paint it to be. Woman are biological entities and when they get pregnant stuff happens to their body that isn't always good or pleasant. Stuff that they may or they may not have anticipated. When it happens though is it right to insist that no matter what they must proceed with the pregnancy? I certainly think that it's not.

Ah, see now you're trying to move the goalposts (again).

We weren't discussing women who are trying to get pregnant and then discover that they've a health issue.

We were discussing people who copulate using contraception and feel entitled to abort any child that they conceive "accidently" (i.e. when their contraception fails). That is morally repugnant and reprehensible in my view. Such people are absolutely using abortion as a form of contraception. They are willing to flippantly take another life "because they've the right to get their leg over". Well f..k that for a game of cards. Let them abstain, get sterilised or do the adult thing if an accident happens and raise the child.

As for your extreme example, notwithstanding that it is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and the fact that I suspect that you're deliberately planting it to derail the argument, this fictional woman should "suck it up" and carry the child to term rather than taking the cowards' way out. Even you must struggle to keep a straight face when claiming that a pregnant woman should terminate a baby rather than taking a bit of pain and a bit of a risk of arthritis.

You seem to want the "Throwaway Society" concept extended to humans.

lazygal

<Little too personal>