Abortion Discussion

Jack Kyle

lazygal wrote: »

I'm currently breastfeeding my second child. I know all about gestating foetuses. I still support abortion access and would have one myself if I wanted and needed one.
So, should I have been paid child benefit while carrying my unborn children?

No because the purpose of child benefit is to meet the expenditure that "born" children bring.

There might be an argument for paying something to pregnant women to get themselves sorted before the baby arrives but that's a different argument.

To be honest, I find it astonishing that you can advocate abortion whilst breastfeeding simultaneously. It's akin to posting about how great euthanasia is whilst sitting at your sick morher's bedside.

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

lazygal, your post is facetious in the extreme.

Did you know that an unborn child's heart starts beating at 20 days?

Or that brainwaves can be detected from an unborn baby at 40 days?

But let's legalise the widespread killing of unborn children just so hedonistic adults can rut like beasts with zero accountability...

That's incorrect.

A fetus' brain only starts to emit electrical signals at 12 weeks, and the EGGs recorded are comparable to that of a sea slug according to the eminent neuroscience researcher Micheal Gazzaniga in his book, "The ethical brain". A fetus only develops its cerebral cortex, the part of the brain which regulates thought and consciousness at 24 weeks, well after the limit for abortions. Before 24 weeks, its brain only emits electrical signals, not brain waves which indicate thought.

Source

So if a foetus hasn't started to emit brain waves, would you allow for an abortion at that point? If not, can you explain why?

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No because the purpose of child benefit is to meet the expenditure that "born" children bring.

There might be an argument for paying something to pregnant women to get themselves sorted before the baby arrives but that's a different argument.

To be honest, I find it astonishing that you can advocate abortion whilst breastfeeding simultaneously. It's akin to posting about how great euthanasia is whilst sitting at your sick morher's bedside.

Welcome to the real world, where things like breastfeeding and believing in the right to abortion access can coexist. Why do you differentiate between the born and unborn for child benefit purposes? Surely there's no difference in your mind?
I also support euthanisa, as do my parents who don't want to be kept alive indefinitely.

Jack Kyle

koth wrote: »

That's incorrect.



So if a foetus hasn't started to emit brain waves, would you allow for an abortion at that point? If not, can you explain why?

Dr Hannibal Hamlin (real name!) would disagree with you. In 1964 he identified brain waves in a 40 day old unborn child.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Irish people are forced to the far corners of the world to find children to adopt.

Adoption rather than abortion is a solution.

And yes, perhaps the taxpayer should subsidise the sterilisation of these people.

If people want to adopt/foster there are plenty of irish kids who needs homes.
Foster services are crying out for families to take children.
But they won't be newborns, if they want a new born then they have to try a waiting list in another country. Shame they can't give a home to kids who are in group homes.

Adoption is the solution to an unwanted child, not an unwanted pregnancy.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

This is really about selfish women wanting pleasure without consequences.

You mean like men were able to do for centuries until (mostly) effective contraception gave women the opportunity to do likewise?

Why should there be consequences?

Why should women be the ones to face those consequences.

I am beginning to suspect, jack, that your position has nothing to do with protecting the unborn and everything to do with your disapproval of women wanting pleasure without consequences.

Women were designed to enjoy sexual pleasure without consequences - that why we have this wonderful thing called a clitoris.

Allows us to orgasm with nary a hint of anything to do with reproduction. Men can't do that - you must be eaten with jealousy jack.

I get to have lashings of sexual pleasure with another person without consequences jack = two clitoris' for the win!

Sarky

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Dr Hannibal Hamlin (real name!) would disagree with you. In 1964 he identified brain waves in a 40 day old unborn child.

Discredited. You might want to check up on that again. Or you could continue being wrong. Both are fine, really.

Jack Kyle

lazygal wrote: »

Welcome to the real world, where things like breastfeeding and believing in the right to abortion access can coexist. Why do you differentiate between the born and unborn for child benefit purposes? Surely there's no difference in your mind?
I also support euthanisa, as do my parents who don't want to be kept alive indefinitely.

Your question is ridiculous but I'll answer it anyway. Because the expenses that child benefit is there to help mitigate don't arise when the baby's still in the womb. But don't let that stop you trying to derail the discussion.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Your question is ridiculous but I'll answer it anyway. Because the expenses that child benefit is there to help mitigate don't arise when the baby's still in the womb. But don't let that stop you trying to derail the discussion.

No extra costs associated with being pregnant eh?

Don't be absurd.

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Your question is ridiculous but I'll answer it anyway. Because the expenses that child benefit is there to help mitigate don't arise when the baby's still in the womb. But don't let that stop you trying to derail the discussion.

No one asks you whether child benefit is spent on booze or nappies. So why wouldn't it be paid if the born and unborn child are the same?

Jack Kyle

Morag wrote: »

If people want to adopt/foster there are plenty of irish kids who needs homes.
Foster services are crying out for families to take children.
But they won't be newborns, if they want a new born then they have to try a waiting list in another country. Shame they can't give a home to kids who are in group homes.

Adoption is the solution to an unwanted child, not an unwanted pregnancy.

I'll tell you what's not an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Killing the poor child because its parents want to live life hedonistically with zero accountability.

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

lazygal, your post is facetious in the extreme.

Did you know that an unborn child's heart starts beating at 20 days?

Or that brainwaves can be detected from an unborn baby at 40 days?

So do you think that the state should recognize the unborn sooner then 24 weeks?

Before 24 weeks it is a miscarriage and the woman does not get maternity leave and there is no legal or state recognition of the unborn.

After 24 weeks it is considered a still birth and a brith/death cert is issued and a pss number and the exsistance is recorded and the woman given maternity leave.

The state already differentiates along the same lines as ones in which there is access to abortion.

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'll tell you what's not an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Killing the poor child because its parents want to live life hedonistically with zero accountability.

I've two children already. How hedonistic will my life get if I've an abortion?

Morag

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I'll tell you what's not an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Killing the poor child because its parents want to live life hedonistically with zero accountability.

Accountable to whom exactly?

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Dr Hannibal Hamlin (real name!) would disagree with you. In 1964 he identified brain waves in a 40 day old unborn child.

It does help to check up on what you're claiming before making unsupported claims.

At only 40 days after fertilization electrical waves as measured by the EEG can be recorded from the baby's brain, indicating brain functioning

Hamlin, H. (1964), "Life or Death by EEG," Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 113.

Electrical waves, not brain waves as you claimed.

Also, would you like to answer the question I asked? If the foetus has no brain waves, would you allow for an abortion in that case? If not, could you give your reasons why.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No extra costs associated with being pregnant eh?

Don't be absurd.

That isn't what I said.

Do people like you even read what others have said before you start typing?

The expenses that arise when the child is outside the womb don't arise when it's in the womb (food, nappies, clothes, etc).

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

That isn't what I said.

Do people like you even read what others have said before you start typing?

The expenses that arise when the child is outside the womb don't arise when it's in the womb (food, nappies, clothes, etc).

What do you mean by "people like you"?
Why differentiate between born and unborn children, surely 'child' benefit applies to the born and unborn if they are the same?

Jack Kyle

Sarky wrote: »

Discredited. You might want to check up on that again. Or you could continue being wrong. Both are fine, really.

Discredited according to who?

Do you just disagree with anyone who's view is opposed to your own?

All you seem to do is post "wrong" and "that's your opinion".

How about you and your fellow believers telling me why it's okay to exterminate the most vulnerable in society?

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Discredited according to who?

Do you just disagree with anyone who's view is opposed to your own?

All you seem to do is post "wrong" and "that's your opinion".

How about you and your fellow believers telling me why it's okay to exterminate the most vulnerable in society?

Ah, so we're believers. In what, exactly?

And how are zygotes and embryos and foetuses the most vulnerable in society? I've minded two of them pretty well.

robindch

Jack Kyle wrote: »

[...] Hitler's [...]

Jack - carded for ignoring multiple mod requests. Your next similar post will be red-carded, then you'll be banned.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

That isn't what I said.

Do people like you even read what others have said before you start typing?

The expenses that arise when the child is outside the womb don't arise when it's in the womb (food, nappies, clothes, etc).

You mean people like me who have actually been pregnant and had to buy things like maternity clothes, sanitary pads as feotus' do like to lie on bladders and a sneeze or a laugh or a pothole in the road can have knicker wetting consequences, - all expenses associated with being pregnant.

I am sure lazygal and others who have had children more recently than I could give you a far more comprehensive list of expenses occurred by women because they are pregnant - so why not a 'with child' benefit?

lazygal

Pregnancy vitamins I was told to take at twenty quid a box, ditto iron for my entire pregnancy. More boxes of Rennie than I care to remember. New shoes and bras every month due to swelling. Extra heating bills as I get very cold during pregnancy. Unpaid time off due to pregnancy related fatigue. Taking a salary hit while on maternity leave.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Pregnancy vitamins I was told to take at twenty quid a box, ditto iron for my entire pregnancy. More boxes of Rennie than I care to remember. New shoes and bras every month due to swelling. Extra heating bills as I get very cold during pregnancy. Unpaid time off due to pregnancy related fatigue. Taking a salary hit while on maternity leave.

Plus for some women there are the costs associated with conditions like gestational diabetes.

I'd forgotten about the iron tablets ...and the massive increase in toilet paper requirements due to the iron tablets. icky sticky tarry poo.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Plus for some women there are the costs associated with conditions like gestational diabetes.

I'd forgotten about the iron tablets ...and the massive increase in toilet paper requirements due to the iron tablets. icky sticky tarry poo.

That's when you can go.....otherwise add prune juice to the list.
Pregnancy is such a magical time.

Jack Kyle

robindch wrote: »

Jack - carded for ignoring multiple mod requests. Your next similar post will be red-carded, then you'll be banned.

Multiple PMs sent.

I'd be grateful if you'd review the relevant posts and the PMs.

Jack Kyle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean people like me who have actually been pregnant and had to buy things like maternity clothes, sanitary pads as feotus' do like to lie on bladders and a sneeze or a laugh or a pothole in the road can have knicker wetting consequences, - all expenses associated with being pregnant.

I am sure lazygal and others who have had children more recently than I could give you a far more comprehensive list of expenses occurred by women because they are pregnant - so why not a 'with child' benefit?

Write to your local TD...maybe pregnant women should get some kind of "early child benefit"?

Either way, it's off topic.

Frito

Hmmm, iron tabs, prune juice, increased heating, swollen feet.

Sounds like old age but without the pension.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Write to your local TD...maybe pregnant women should get some kind of "early child benefit"?

Either way, it's off topic.

You write to your TD since you are the one who is insisting a feotus is a child.

And as you are insisting a feotus is a child then it is not off topic to discuss why it is not considered a child by the State when allocating who get's child benefit.

Nor would it be off topic to ask whether we should be should be celebrating implantation day rather than birthday if there is no real difference between being in the womb and outside the womb.

iwantmydinner

So I'm thinking the real issue here is not killing da baybeeeez but rather the fact that women get to live their lives the way we choose to. Doesn't seem to sit too well with some people.

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

So I'm thinking the real issue here is not killing da baybeeeez but rather the fact that women get to live their lives the way we choose to. Doesn't seem to sit too well with some people.

The issue is women wanting certain more trivial things at the expense of the life of the unborn child.

This isn't just about opinions. There is such a thing as objective morality.

How important is me getting my leg over and "free love" versus the life of an unborn baby?

Have you ever seen a scan where a baby is constantly waving its left hand in the air and then seen that child playing sports left handed after it is born? I have.
Tell me that in those circumstances we're not dealing with a baby or a child when it's in the womb?

How can you think that it's okay to exterminate unborn children? All for what? So women (and men) can rut like chimpanzees purely for self gratification?