Abortion Discussion

iwantmydinner

Any rational person giving that paper even a brief scan would realise that these academics were making an academic argument specifically designed to generate response, rebuttal and debate. IT'S WHAT ACADEMICS DO.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Use of the word spayed just shows that Jack sees women as bitches with animals urges.

I am nearly beginning to pity him. But as he would imprison and drug pregnant women I don't.

I think what he means is that women that like lots of sex, if the find pregnancy that bad then get sterilised, rather than have an abortion as they don't want a baby under any circumstances so why do they need to be fertile. its just an opinion - keep your blouse on

For rape, its estimated at approx. 2% (there is no excuse even if it appears a low number)

Research in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s generally calculated rape-pregnancy rates between 1 percent and 5 percent, with the most broadly quoted estimates around 2 percent, according to the article in the journal Human Nature. By comparison, a woman’s chance of getting pregnant from a single act of intercourse is about 3.1 percent, according to a separate 2001 study in the journal Contraception.
Researchers in the Human Nature study, which examined evolutionary theories of human rape, focused on women of reproductive age who were victims of penile-vaginal rape and adjusted for the use of contraception. They calculated that a given instance of rape may actually be more likely to result in pregnancy than an instance of consensual sex. (They argue this may be the case from an evolutionary perspective, because rapists control their choice of victims, and may prefer women who are fertile and ovulating.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jun/18/do-rapes-result-fewer-pregnancies-consensual-inter/

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who here has advocated 'after-birth' abortions?

its abortion, that's the way ye crowd are heading. As Dr Eva would say 'cop on'

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

I think what he means is that women that like lots of sex, if the find pregnancy that bad then get sterilised, rather than have an abortion as they don't want a baby under any circumstances so why do they need to be fertile. its just an opinion - keep your blouse on

For rape, its estimated at approx. 2% (there is no excuse even if it appears a low number)

Research in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s generally calculated rape-pregnancy rates between 1 percent and 5 percent, with the most broadly quoted estimates around 2 percent, according to the article in the journal Human Nature. By comparison, a woman’s chance of getting pregnant from a single act of intercourse is about 3.1 percent, according to a separate 2001 study in the journal Contraception.
Researchers in the Human Nature study, which examined evolutionary theories of human rape, focused on women of reproductive age who were victims of penile-vaginal rape and adjusted for the use of contraception. They calculated that a given instance of rape may actually be more likely to result in pregnancy than an instance of consensual sex. (They argue this may be the case from an evolutionary perspective, because rapists control their choice of victims, and may prefer women who are fertile and ovulating.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jun/18/do-rapes-result-fewer-pregnancies-consensual-inter/

No, I don't think that is what he means at all.

Even if it is - what the hell is wrong with women having lots and lots and lots of sex if they bloody well want to????

Blouse? Back to attempts at being patronising I see.

Now why don't to hitch your y-fronts up and give me a good reason why women should be denied the same level of control over their bodies as men?

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Use of the word spayed just shows that Jack sees women as bitches with animals urges.

I am nearly beginning to pity him. But as he would imprison and drug pregnant women I don't.

It's interesting alright. It's the extremes to which he goes that is so hard to get my head around.

Woman does not want to be pregnant now (although may sometime want to be) = SPAYED

Woman gets raped and cannot conceive (no pun, not funny...) of carrying rapists baby = FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH

Woman makes every effort not to get pregnant, using contraception, as does man - pregnancy happens anyway = WOMAN IS FORNICATING HEDONIST FOR WANTING END OF PREGNANCY

Can't take it on board though, as he's just another extremist from the same mold as the "meat is murder" veggies. He hasn't yet explained what exactly is so special about a human embryo life (at 12 weeks, if you like Jack....) compared to the typical animal life killed for human consumption........

iwantmydinner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, I don't think that is what he means at all.

Even if it is - what the hell is wrong with women having lots and lots and lots of sex if they bloody well want to????

Wimmin r not sposed to njoy d sex. Duh.

Also, not sure Jack would appreciate mbiking123 calling his objective morality "just an opinion".

Frito

mbiking123 wrote: »

I think what he means is that women that like lots of sex, if the find pregnancy that bad then get sterilised, rather than have an abortion as they don't want a baby under any circumstances so why do they need to be fertile. its just an opinion - keep your blouse on

I think the point being missed is that "I don't want this pregnancy" does not mean "I don't want any pregnancy, ever".

Turtwig

mbiking123 wrote: »

its abortion, that's the way ye crowd are heading. As Dr Eva would say 'cop on'

Some folks here may be in favour of raising the minimum wage. That doesn't mean however they are in support of raising it to €110/hr. It's more relevant - and indeed rhetorically correct- to argue against their current position. Only argue against the €110/hr if they ever get to that stance. It's far more constructive to just focus on X than the possibility of someone being against something that is several steps away from X.

So quick poll folks:
After birth abortions : Yay/Nay.

Nay!

Obliq

Nay! Duh...

iwantmydinner

Nay!







Although, I would like to explore this €110/hr business...

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

its abortion, that's the way ye crowd are heading. As Dr Eva would say 'cop on'

The way us crowd are heading???

The way ye crowd are heading women will be kept in cages and forcibly impregnated.
Father's will lock their daughters in these cages as soon as they get their first period.
Like battery hens.

Only spayed women will be allowed out to make the sammiches.

Now that we have the hyperbolic nonsense out of the way how about you deal with this

give me a good reason why women should be denied the same level of control over their bodies as men?

Edit : Nay!

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, I don't think that is what he means at all.

Even if it is - what the hell is wrong with women having lots and lots and lots of sex if they bloody well want to????

'In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.' - Eleanor Roosevelt - Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was the longest-serving First Lady of the United States, holding the post from 1933 to 1945

Delirium

Just for clarity sake, the 96% Jack referred to was the odds of not miscarriage after a foetal heartbeat began. It is not the odds if survival as he claimed.

Frito

Jernal wrote: »

Afterbirth abortions : Yay/Nay.

Nay!

Won't somebody please think of the roses.

mbiking123

koth wrote: »

Just for clarity sake, the 96% Jack referred to was the odds of not miscarriage after a foetal heartbeat began. It is not the odds if survival as he claimed.

Maybe let Jack clarify it himself, maybe it was a mistake - maybe not

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

'In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.' - Eleanor Roosevelt - Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was the longest-serving First Lady of the United States, holding the post from 1933 to 1945

Relevance?

Dr Bannasidhe.

Historian who knows far more about Eleanor Roosevelt (and her girlfriends) than the average searching for irrelevant quotes poster who obviously did not know that the Roosevelt Institute advocates for women's reproductive rights and Eleanor herself was pro-choice.

“In 1962 I was working at what was then the largest market research firm in the country, Alfred Politz Research, founded and run by an alcoholic German, Alfred Politz, who was a serial womanizer. Knowing my politics to be on the left side of the spectrum, he frequently berated me about liberals. And one of his prime examples was Eleanor Roosevelt, who had a syndicated column, My Day. She was a typical liberal, he said, afraid to come out for abortion rights for fear of irritating the Catholic church. ”You don’t know that,” I said. I then wrote a letter to Eleanor, asking if she had the time for an interview. She replied that she did and soon I found myself having tea with her in her brownstone on the East Side of Manhattan. I told her what my boss had said, and then she said that she was a fervent supporter of abortion rights for women. When I returned to work, I relayed this information to Alfred, who scoffed, saying she would never go public with this support. Well, a week later, the “My Day” column carried Eleanor’s eloquent support for abortion rights. I bought a dozen copies of that edition and dumped them on Alfred’s desk. For one of the first times in his life, he was speechless. “I was delighted that he had brought it up since it enabled me to meet a gentle lady with a very strong spine.”

http://franjohns.net/2013/06/17/eleanor-roosevelt-on-reproductive-rights/

Frito

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Relevance?

was wondering the same meself.

Bit vague too. Is the quote as applicable to my choice of cheese and onion crisps over smokey bacon?

And lastly, the irony over using a quote about self-determination to argue against self-determination.

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

want a picture ?

No thank you.

I would like an answer to this

give me a good reason why women should be denied the same level of control over their bodies as men?

Turtwig

And we have fallen off the pyramid. Please up the quality of debate in thread or posts will be deleted (and possibly grammatically edited with errors for amusement) at callous mods discretion.

shruikan2553

An abortion is to end the pregnancy, once a baby is born the pregnancy is over. Why would someone need an abortion if they werent pregnant?

What happens at implantation that creates life?

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Go to a 12 week scan. Then see if you're still okay with an unborn child being killed.

Am I the only person that looks at those scans and can never see what people are pointing to?

mbiking123

Jernal wrote: »

And we have fallen off the pyramid. Please up the quality of debate in thread or posts will be deleted (and possibly grammatically edited with errors for amusement) at callous mods discretion.

Fair point

Must say very biased here, pro choice gang getin away with it

my picture is removed and yet pictures of Irish people protesting are up here as a big joke against them. name and shame eh what are they guilty of - expressing an opinion

Took you long enough to remove Bannasidhe comment and my picture was removed very fast. I only lowered my arguments as people lowered there attitude towards me. if I did not post the picture, I wonder if the comment would have been removed

no debate here, this is just a pro-choice thread and ye crowd cant accept the truth.

shruikan2553

mbiking123 wrote: »

Fair point

Must say very biased here, pro choice gang getin away with it

my picture is removed and yet pictures of Irish people protesting are up here as a big joke against them. name and shame eh what are they guilty of - expressing an opinion

Took you long enough to remove Bannasidhe comment and my picture was removed very fast. I only lowered my arguments as people lowered there attitude towards me. if I did not post the picture, I wonder if the comment would have been removed

no debate here, this is just a pro-choice thread and ye crowd cant accept the truth.

<Mod: See previous warning.>

Turtwig

The mods have edited/delete a tonne posts over the last few days. So I've idea which post you're actually referring to. The last couple of posts were all deleted at once.

Please do not discuss moderation in thread. If you have concerns take it to PM, feedback, or the helpdesk.

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

Fair point

Must say very biased here, pro choice gang getin away with it

my picture is removed and yet pictures of Irish people protesting are up here as a big joke against them. name and shame eh what are they guilty of - expressing an opinion

Took you long enough to remove Bannasidhe comment and my picture was removed very fast. I only lowered my arguments as people lowered there attitude towards me. if I did not post the picture, I wonder if the comment would have been removed

no debate here, this is just a pro-choice thread and ye crowd cant accept the truth.

Nonsense. You have repeatedly ignored any logical or rational debate and simply insulted people with your posts. You're not pro-life, just anti-abortion. The fact you haven't been banned just show how much the mods believe in open debate.

jill_valentine

I'm sure we can all agree that clitorises are brilliant though.

Bannasidhe

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm sure we can all agree that clitorises are brilliant though.

and the societal problems caused by clit envy.

Cabaal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

We may as well be debating the merits or otherwise of kiddy fiddling.

We have a thread on that http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055853778

The catholic church has lots of knowledge on how to "look after" child abusers, so you'll have plenty of source material about them and the Vatican to point to.

Cabaal

Jack,
I'll ask this again since you might have missed it,

1. Would you be happy to deny your wife/sister/cousin an abortion if she was raped and beaten and became pregnant and wants to have an abortion? Will you be such a big person as to tell her she must give birth to the rapists offspring?

2 Are you happy with the fetus being created out of a rape?

3 Do you think the women should cherish the rapists offspring being inside her body?

4 Do you think the rapist should have legal rights to see his offspring if it is born? If no, then why would you deny the rights of another human being and the child?

Cabaal

After the backwards arse priest stepping down yesterday, the remaining nun says abortions won't happen.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mater-won-t-be-performing-abortions-religious-board-member-stresses-1.1548764

Mater ‘won’t be performing abortions’, religious board member stresses
Resignation of Fr Kevin Doran from Mater Hospital a ‘great loss’, says colleague

Again lets not forget this nun was also against cancer treatment for women
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html

Now she can have no abortions in the hospital if she wants, but for that to happen all tax payer money needs to stop.

As long as that hospital receives state funds then it will follow the laws of the Irish state, it is not above the laws of this country and its this sort of thinking in the past from religious people that meant that sexual abuse continued in the catholic church and other faiths.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Read through the thread.

Read the posts.

There are numerous examples of posters basically saying that they want to copulate without consequences.

What makes certain people morally superior is the fact that in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, they'd "get on with it" rather than killing the resulting unborn child.

And if you can't deal with the consequences because of health or financial reasons, then either:

- Abstain, or

- Get sterilised.

Abortion is a consequence of selfish self indulgent hedonistic behaviour.

What disturbs me is that you seem to feel that the only reason a woman who does not need a medical abortion would terminate a pregnancy is so that she can continue to have unprotected sex with varying partners whilst necking champagne by the crateload. You don’t seem to consider financial, health, or emotional considerations other than to say ‘abstain or get sterilised’, which is completely preposterous.

It is preposterous for the simply reason that because I am not prepared to have a baby right now, it doesn’t mean that I won’t want one in the future. Sterilisation would render me permanently incapable of reproducing, not to mention the fact that it is an invasive procedure which is not risk-free, and that doctors are incredibally relucant to perform sterilisations on people who have not already had children. Remaining abstinant sounds like it would be no problem, but how many men do you think would be prepared to stay in a relationship with a woman who does just want to wait until she’s married to have sex, but until she’s 100% certain that she definitely wants to have a child?

You continually maintain that “Abortion is a consequence of selfish self indulgent hedonistic behaviour”. I put it to you, Jack, that the majority of terminations are NOT carried out because the woman doesn’t want to interrupt her party-girl lifestyle, but because the woman is financially unable to care for a child, or already has children and having another would impact on her ability to look after them, or because she is too young to be financially independent (e.g. a college student) and having a child would mean that she would have to give up her studies, forcing her into a life of benefit dependency rather than the financially independent future she could have had had she been able to finish college.

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.

Because research done 50 years ago is more reliable than modern studies showing no brainwaves at that stage of gestation?

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.

There you go with the hedonism again…

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).

If an unborn foetus is a child, as you claim, with all the rights of a born child, as you claim, then why should pre-born-child support NOT be paid to cover all the costs incurred by a woman during pregnancy? Pregnancy clothing and supplements, medical care, and ante-natal classes aren’t free, you know.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman that puts her own health above the life of her child is a callous human being and unfit to be a mother.

Unless the pregnancy wil kill her, a woman should not have an abortion.

Anything else is just our selfish throwaway society gone mad.

Would you willingly cripple yourself for something that may make it through 9 months to be delivered? Even if this meant that you were unable to look after children that you already have, whether physically because of your disability, or financially because of your decreased ability to work meaning that your income is now non-existant? Do you have children? Would you drive rusty spikes through your joints forever (to simulate the osteoarthritis we were talking about upthread) for them?

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I would probably look for the point in time where it is overwhelmingly likely that a baby will be born.

So, some time around 25 weeks then? Before that it might be born but it almost certainly either won’t survive or will be so handicapped that round-the-clock nursng care would be necessary.

Jack Kyle wrote:

A good starting point might very well be 20 days when a foetal heartbeat can be detected. Apparently 96% of babies survive at this stage:

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

koth wrote: »

Nowhere in the link does it state what you're claiming. It says after 12 weeks the loss of pregnancy rate is 3-4%. You're off by about 50 days.

That’s the reason why it’s traditional to wait for three months before announcing a pregnancy; the likelyhood of miscarriage is so high before that point.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Then get sterilised.

I'm sorry, but if someone wants to have sex and pregnancy would be an absolute disaster for them, then they should get spayed.

It's foolish not to.

I find your constant referral to human sterilisation in veterinary terms quite offensive. Please stop referring to women as though they are cats or dogs, it’s repugnant.

mbiking123 wrote: »

I think what he means is that women that like lots of sex, if the find pregnancy that bad then get sterilised, rather than have an abortion as they don't want a baby under any circumstances so why do they need to be fertile. its just an opinion - keep your blouse on

Because not wanting a baby right now means they’ll never want a baby, yeah?

mbiking123 wrote: »

'In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.' - Eleanor Roosevelt - Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was the longest-serving First Lady of the United States, holding the post from 1933 to 1945

You see, that’s a pro-choice argument. “The choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility” meaning that it is up to each individual to make choices and, well, accept responsibility for them. If a woman chooses to have an abortion then it is her resposibility to square it with her own conscience.