Abortion Discussion

lazygal

PS pregnancies are terminated, not babies. Both my pregnancies were terminated by c section. Glad to be able to clarify the difference.

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.

Just so we're clear:

- You're in your 40s.
- You already have kids.
- You don't want anymore kids.
- Your "fella" doesn't want kids at all.
- Your "answer" should you get pregnant will be to terminate the child's life.

If only there was another solution to the above...one that didn't involve what many view as infanticide...and that meant that you and your "fella" could continue to fornicate without a care in the world.

One (or both) of you should get spayed. I've heard that it's not even that expensive. And if you're "badly off" I'm sure that there's some sort of social welfare support for the procedure.

Seriously, why wouldn't you do this? Whatever one's views on abortion, no doubt it's a horrible procedure (both mentally and physically) to have to endure.

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

Do you then think people who drive a car to work every day deserve to die? Or should they just be refused medical care if they get into an accident?

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Just so we're clear:

- You're in your 40s.
- You already have kids.
- You don't want anymore kids.
- Your "fella" doesn't want kids at all.
- Your "answer" should you get pregnant will be to terminate the child's life.

If only there was another solution to the above...one that didn't involve what many view as infanticide...and that meant that you and your "fella" could continue to fornicate without a care in the world.

One (or both) of you should get spayed. I've heard that it's not even that expensive. And if you're "badly off" I'm sure that there's some sort of social welfare support for the procedure.

Seriously, why wouldn't you do this? Whatever one's views on abortion, no doubt it's a horrible procedure (both mentally and physically) to have to endure.

a) I didn't say I was badly off
b) I have a coil (which is nearly as good as being spayed)
c) I enjoy a full and satisfactory sex life with a similarly minded man (yes, "fella". It's not a dirty word).
d) Speaking hypothetically, yes, I would have an abortion if I got pregnant now - because I am making every effort not to have babies and it is the last thing I want or need. I do not need your permission to kill my unwanted embryos. Thanks though, for your concern (for them, if not for me), but it is unwanted and unnecessary.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

Do you then think people who drive a car to work every day deserve to die? Or should they just be refused medical care if they get into an accident?

That's a bizarre analogy.

What is the primary purpose of sex? Reproduction.

Using your logic, the primary purpose of driving to work is getting killed.

Turtwig

Jack Kyle wrote: »

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.

Not trying to move the goal posts. We're still talking about women having abortions. If you wish to confine it to women who have abortion as a means of contraception by all means you can.I don't agree with your philosophical viewpoint on sex. But I do think even if somebody was to consider that view of abortion absolutely repugnant it would be wrong to just use that facet of abortion as a means to decide the law on abortion. It's a bit like analysing crime in America and concluding that the majority of crimes are committed by black people. There's this despicable subset of black people most likely to commit the most heinous of crimes. This subset is the reason why no black people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves."


I would like to note two things two:
Arthritis can be very debilitating and painful. Very painful! Your description of "taking a bit of pain" sounds a bit dismissive of how debilitating the illness can be for some.

"suck it up" isn't adult, it's silly. Many people in walks of life encounter problems and the attitude of "sucking it up" is probably the most destructive attitude they can take. It's also terrible that others around them decide to adopt such an attitude. People should manage their problems and their expectations. Folks around them would do well to serve likewise.

Jack Kyle

Obliq wrote: »

a) I didn't say I was badly off
b) I have a coil (which is nearly as good as being spayed)
c) I enjoy a full and satisfactory sex life with a similarly minded man (yes, "fella". It's not a dirty word).
d) Speaking hypothetically, yes, I would have an abortion if I got pregnant now - because I am making every effort not to have babies and it is the last thing I want or need. I do not need your permission to kill my unwanted embryos. Thanks though, for your concern (for them, if not for me), but it is unwanted and unnecessary.

I never said that you were badly off (I said "if").

Too be honest, I find your outlook reprehensible.

Posters asked for an example of a fellow poster seeking to use abortion as a form of contraception. This is it...QED.

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

That's a bizarre analogy.

What is the primary purpose of sex? Reproduction.

Using your logic, the primary purpose of driving to work is getting killed.

Bloody hell... I don't believe reproduction has every been the primary urge for any animal to have sex. Urges are just that - a surge of chemical input to your brain and nether regions for the sole purpose of getting your end away. It may be nature's primary purpose (reproducing itself) but for us, I believe it's more about the wonderful physical sense of well being sex gives us. The thought of reproduction being the primary purpose of sex is pretty far from most horny folk's heads tbh. But you should know that. Don't they teach anything in school these days?

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I never said that you were badly off (I said "if").

Too be honest, I find your outlook reprehensible.

Posters asked for an example of a fellow poster seeking to use abortion as a form of contraception. This is it...QED.

No. Abortion is the only way out of a pregnancy that would otherwise ruin my life, and those of my loved ones for the foreseeable future. Contraception is where I try my best to make sure I don't ever have to take that decision. I am responsible for more lives than just my own, and I am in no way responsible for your feelings on the matter.

Jack Kyle

Jernal wrote: »

Not trying to move the goal posts. We're still talking about women having abortions. If you wish to confine it to women who have abortion as a means of contraception by all means you can.I don't agree with your philosophical viewpoint on sex. But I do think even if somebody was to consider that view of abortion absolutely repugnant it would be wrong to just use that facet of abortion as a means to decide the law on abortion. It's a bit like analysing crime in America and concluding that the majority of crimes are committed by black people. There's this despicable subset of black people most likely to commit the most heinous of crimes. This subset is the reason why no black people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves."


I would like to note two things two:
Arthritis can be very debilitating and painful. Very painful! Your description of "taking a bit of pain" sounds a bit dismissive of how debilitating the illness can be for some.

"suck it up" isn't adult, it's silly. Many people in walks of life encounter problems and the attitude of "sucking it up" is probably the most destructive attitude they can take. It's also terrible that others around them decide to adopt such an attitude. People should manage their problems and their expectations. Folks around them would do well to serve likewise.

We're talking about ending a human life versus some suffering for its parent.

Most parents would do anything for their children.

Yet we've posters in this thread freely admitting to fornicating with the expressed intention of aborting their baby if they become pregnant.

That is appalling in my view.

Jack Kyle

Obliq wrote: »

No. Abortion is the only way out of a pregnancy that would otherwise ruin my life, and those of my loved ones for the foreseeable future. Contraception is where I try my best to make sure I don't ever have to take that decision. I am responsible for more lives than just my own, and I am in no way responsible for your feelings on the matter.

Then get sterilised. Or get your "fella" to have a vasectomy.

Turtwig

Jack Kyle wrote: »

We're talking about ending a human life versus some suffering for its parent.

Most parents would do anything for their children.

Yet we've posters in this thread freely admitting to fornicating with the expressed intention of aborting their baby if they become pregnant.

That is appalling in my view.

No we're talking about ending a human life versus obligatory suffering for some parents. Most parents would do anything for their kids but I'd imagine all have their limits. Everyone is different and I'm not comfortable with forcing anyone to do anything. The choice should be theirs to make.

We might have those posters. I don't consider their view appalling but I understand that you do. Do you accept that these women aren't the only women who may be affected by the abortion debate? In any case, you wish to discuss women who get abortions as a form of contraception so we'll stick to that.

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Yet we've posters in this thread freely admitting to fornicating with the expressed intention of aborting their baby if they become pregnant.

No again. What we have are posters freely admitting to enjoying sex with the expressed intention of not getting pregnant. Were this to happen by accident, every effort would be made to end the pregnancy. Hopefully the morning after pill, but that doesn't always work. You have it backwards petal - people do not often have sex with the intention of becoming pregnant - once or twice in their lives maybe. Other than that, sex is for enjoyment only.

lazygal

Sorry Jack, but in case you missed it pregnancies are aborted or terminated, not babies or children, I had two terminations myself.

Jack Kyle

Folks, are you all on the level or are you just trolling and posting stuff that you don't believe? I freely admit that I sometimes "gild the lily" a little in my posts but I do believe that abortion is morally wrong in almost all cases. I just can't believe that the majority of you think that using abortion as a form of retrospective contraception is okay. Forget about rape victims or extreme cases for a sec. Do you honestly believe that we should have widescale abortion on any grounds? What about people who don't want another girl (see this link: http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/women-in-uk-legally-free-to-abort-child-on-sex-grounds-243541.html)? It is bad for society if we can just kill unborn children because it encourages us NOT to think responsibly and rewards base human behaviour.

lazygal, I'm ignoring your pedantic posts re "terminate" vs "murder". They're akin to grammar Nazism and a complete internet faux pas.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I use terminate/murder/kill/abort...so what if it's slightly inaccurate...the sentiment's clear.

As is your sentiment and lazygal's...you want to try and maintain the illusion that it's only a process that's being ended rather than a child being murdered.

Abortion isn't murder. Even in countries where abortion is illegal, the doctors or woman aren't charged with murder. It usually is the crime of procuring/providing an illegal abortion they are charged with.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Hilarious to hear the apologists for premeditated infanticide and "free love" calling someone else's opinions cruel TBH.

It's not infanticide unless the child has been born.

In addition, most abortions are carried out prior to 16 weeks which AFAIK very few (if any) would survive if delivered at that point.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

Abortion isn't murder. Even in countries where abortion is illegal, the doctors or woman aren't charged with murder. It usually is the crime of procuring/providing an illegal abortion they are charged with.

Would a T-800's efforts to kill the unborn John Connor be "murder"?

I believe so.

That isn't a p1ss take by the way...it's a serious philosophical question.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

It's not infanticide unless the child has been born.

In addition, most abortions are carried out prior to 16 weeks which AFAIK very few (if any) would survive if delivered at that point.

So what? What's relevant is how many would survive if carried full term (the vast majority obviously). But then that doesn't suit your argument.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Would a T-800's efforts to kill the unborn John Connor be "murder"?

I believe so.

That isn't a p1ss take by the way...it's a serious philosophical question.

No because the T-800 attempted to kill Johns mother before conception so there was no foetus to kill. She became pregnant because of the father of the child time travelled back to save his own son. It's a paradox. T-800 would have been more successful if it didn't travel back in time

Turtwig

Several posts deleted. Temperature is far too hot in here. I suggest people take a little break from the kitchen. Please don't accuse other posters of lying. Please don't accuse other posters of trolling. Please keep the tone of your posts in check. Please try to be civil to one another.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

No because the T-800 attempted to kill Johns mother before conception so there was no foetus to kill. She became pregnant because of the father of the child time travelled back to save his own son. It's a paradox. T-800 would have been more successful if it didn't travel back in time

I deliberately asked "would" because I was asking about a scenario that's not quite in those movies (but interesting philosophically).

If a T-800 travelled back in time and punched Sarah Connor in the stomach, thus killing the unborn John Connor, would that be murder?

I think that it would.

Jack Kyle

This is a good discussion folks.

Please don't mistake my non responsiveness over the next while for evasion or disinterest...I need some sleep as I'm off on my holidays in the morning.

To a place where (I'd suspecr) abortion is illegal in all forms...not a deliberate choice I assure you!

There'll be WiFi though...laters

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I deliberately asked "would" because I was asking about a scenario that's not quite in those movies (but interesting philosophically).

If a T-800 travelled back in time and punched Sarah Connor in the stomach, thus killing the unborn John Connor, would that be murder?

I think that it would.

no, because you can't charge a machine with murder. /pedant


It would depend on where the pregnancy was. If the T800 succeeded and the foetus wouldn't have survived outside of the womb at that point, then no it's not murder. At the later stages, I'm not sure it's murder either as the law generally refers to a human being after they have been born.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Several posts deleted. Temperature is far too hot in here. I suggest people take a little break from the kitchen. Please don't accuse other posters of lying. Please don't accuse other posters of trolling. Please keep the tone of your posts in check. Please try to be civil to one another.

They can't kiss...that could lead to sex and ....pregnancy...:eek:

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

That's a bizarre analogy.

What is the primary purpose of sex? Reproduction.

Using your logic, the primary purpose of driving to work is getting killed.

Not all that bizarre.

The primary purpose of sex with contraceptives is definitely not reproduction, that would in fact be an unwanted side effect, much like getting killed driving to work.

_rebelkid

koth wrote: »

It's not infanticide unless the child has been born.

In addition, most abortions are carried out prior to 16 weeks which AFAIK very few (if any) would survive if delivered at that point.

At 22/23/24 week, 9/100 of premature births survive to full adulthood with no or slight disability. The next 15 or so survive to limited adulthood (life expectacy) with severe disability, and the rest either die during birth or are kept alive for around 4-6 weeks.

Before 20 weeks the rate of any surviving is close to 0, seeing as the vital organs have only started to develop.

Figures are from a BBC documentary called "24 Week Babies" which examined premature birth and abortions around 24 weeks in the UK and Denmark.



*They chose Denmark because they do not resuscitate before 29/30 weeks owing to both the harshness of medical treatment and the sheer cost.

lazygal

What's often left out of the comments about 'well babies survive at 22 weeks' is the severe disabilities such children can be left with. I read of a case recently of a man who was born at 24 weeks and is now 18. He's blind, suffers dozens of seizures a day, is doubly incontinent and has the brain function of a six month old. In other words, little or no quality of life.

While his mother is happy to care for him, it's taken a massive toll on the rest of the family who are constantly wondering what will happen when mum dies and this man is left to the care of the state. Not a burden I'd happily shoulder.

Once again, when people like Fidelma Healy Eames dare tell women who have had terminations for fatal foetal abnormalities that women who didn't and delivered their babies are 'happier' I can't help but conclude that the pro life side want a foetus delivered at all costs, physical and emotional, regardless of any other considerations. The goal is birth, and you can fûck off after that, seeing as FHE was happy to vote in favour of cuts for services for the very children and adults she wants all women to bear.

_rebelkid

lazygal wrote: »

What's often left out of the comments about 'well babies survive at 22 weeks' is the severe disabilities such children can be left with. I read of a case recently of a man who was born at 24 weeks and is now 18. He's blind, suffers dozens of seizures a day, is doubly incontinent and has the brain function of a six month old. In other words, little or no quality of life.

While his mother is happy to care for him, it's taken a massive toll on the rest of the family who are constantly wondering what will happen when mum dies and this man is left to the care of the state. Not a burden I'd happily shoulder.

Once again, when people like Fidelma Healy Eames dare tell women who have had terminations for fatal foetal abnormalities that women who didn't and delivered their babies are 'happier' I can't help but conclude that the pro life side want a foetus delivered at all costs, physical and emotional, regardless of any other considerations. The goal is birth, and you can fûck off after that, seeing as FHE was happy to vote in favour of cuts for services for the very children and adults she wants all women to bear.

Exactly. In the documentary, the spoke to a girl who was born at 24 weeks, and had sever disabilities afterwards. She has been housebound for her entire life, and has 2 nurses coming to her every day. But, she turned 18 while they were filming the documentary. Once she was 18, all of the care and support she was given by the NHS was stopped. This girl will probably not live longer than 30/35 more years. But she will be used by people as a shining beacon of how babies survive at 24 weeks. She herself says she has no quality of life. But, it is a life she is living, and she wants to keep living so she can be with her family.

aloyisious

Jack Kyle wrote: »

So what? What's relevant is how many would survive if carried full term (the vast majority obviously). But then that doesn't suit your argument.

The survival if allowed go to full term relevancy is only part of the abortion debate and is obviously given different weight by different people. That argument is used by those who declare themselves Pro-Life and seem's (to me) to totally ignore the fact that the pregnant woman is the one person who's actually a living breathing walking talking being, as distinct from the foetus, which; being honest here is only possibly a future-tense independently-living being. It seems to ignore the relevance of the life of the pregnant woman, and requires the woman to put her trust in God and/or nature, neither of which always allow pregnancies come full-term resulting in birth of a bright bouncing baby. Telling a pregnant woman that she MUST obey the dictates and faith of another person's personal beliefs is not on in a democracy.