Abortion Discussion

lazygal

pauldla wrote: »

I was wondering about that. What bearing does possession of an AK-47 have on abortion?

You can use it on abortion providers to prove you're pro life??

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

lets say that I would like to own an AK-47, in some places this is legal in Ireland it is not. I don't have the choice, that choice has been removed from me

If I am pointing a loaded AK-47 at you, you don't have much free will. You'll be standing there with your hands in the air

I can't afford a lamborghini, abortion is obviously wrong!

And do any of us really have free will ? http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

If you take your view of needing free will and accept that we don't have free will. Then wars, famine etc and all that loss of life is ok, in fact none of us have the right to life

are you debating yourself??

Unborn things !, I don't know how you could compare an unborn animal to an unborn human. An unborn human is not a 'thing'. Take John Waters the Journalist he is a pro choice supporter, he sees nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn human and yet has stated a number of years back on the late late show that blood sports are wrong, on the night hare coursing was being discussed. I cant understand how someone who can put the life of a hare or any other animal over an unborn human (I don't agree with coursing myself)

All of this is redundant because as lazygal correctly suggested, Waters is pro-life.

iwantmydinner

Mbiking, I genuinely struggle to follow your "logic".

eviltwin

mbiking123 wrote: »

Could say the same over health issues, smoking, drinking, or even fat tax http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/government-warned-over-fat-tax-fallout-1.1536533

All those things you describe have nothing to do with abortion because they affect LIVING people. Its a whole different ball game once you are talking about independent, individual beings.

The law itself backs that up. If I give my child drugs I can be done for neglect but not if I take drugs during my pregnancy. If I use the AK47 to shoot a pregnant woman I will be charged with one death, not two.

aloyisious

mbiking123 wrote: »

lets say that I would like to own an AK-47, in some places this is legal in Ireland it is not. I don't have the choice, that choice has been removed from me

If I am pointing a loaded AK-47 at you, you don't have much free will. You'll be standing there with your hands in the air

And do any of us really have free will ? http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

If you take your view of needing free will and accept that we don't have free will. Then wars, famine etc and all that loss of life is ok, in fact none of us have the right to life

Unborn things !, I don't know how you could compare an unborn animal to an unborn human. An unborn human is not a 'thing'. Take John Waters the Journalist he is a pro choice supporter, he sees nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn human and yet has stated a number of years back on the late late show that blood sports are wrong, on the night hare coursing was being discussed. I cant understand how someone who can put the life of a hare or any other animal over an unborn human (I don't agree with coursing myself)

The circumstance of each situation is different. Faced with a theoretical choice, a hare as against a human, I'd choose to kill the hare on a species basis. On the same basis, if given the need to choose between an "unborn human" (as you call the foetus in the womb) and a human living outside the womb, I'd opt for killing the foetus.

Laws are set to limit abortions to a date-period, and they vary from state to state (where abortion operations are legalized). Ditto for killing other humans. States (and humanity) have accepted that there are situations where human acts are against the best interests of humanity in general and must be responded-to in similar-kind brutality, when the interest of the human species is at risk (the mad dog must be put down - example).

Going off-topic (tongue-firmly-in-cheek) theoretically here, in the case of the AK-holder as against the unarmed O/P, if the AK-wielder was standing in a minefield and the O/P was outside with a map showing where the mines were planted and the safety path route out, the AK holder just might have his options limited to zero. Situations always vary

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

The pro choice smoking lobby would not agree with you

http://pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.ie/

Removing head shops removed peoples choice

What about the unborn choice, I have no concern for pro choice for smoking or head shops but would be pro life, before or after birth

Clumps of cells don't have choices. Why don't you understand this?

mbiking123

lazygal wrote: »

I think you may be mistaken about Waters. He's anti choice.

possibly, or maybe changed his view in any case something more important

'Abortion survivor lambasts Obama infanticide vote in ‘withering’ new ad'

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-survivor-lambasts-obama-infanticide-vote-in-withering-new-ad

'The bill was introduced after pro-life nurse Jill Stanek witnessed babies being born alive after failed abortions, then being brought to a room in the Illinois hospital where she worked and left to die.'

'That’s the uncomfortable implication of a hard-hitting new ad released by the Susan B. Anthony List this week, featuring Ohden, who was born alive after a failed saline infusion abortion in 1977.'

Abortions kill people !

mbiking123

old hippy wrote: »

Clumps of cells don't have choices. Why don't you understand this?

Could say the same about you

mbiking123

aloyisious wrote: »

Going off-topic (tongue-firmly-in-cheek) theoretically here, in the case of the AK-holder as against the unarmed O/P, if the AK-wielder was standing in a minefield and the O/P was outside with a map showing where the mines were planted and the safety path route out, the AK holder just might have his options limited to zero. Situations always vary

How would the AK-47 person end up in the mine field so, could they not just re trace their footprints out ? Or use a knife/bayonet like the Brits at El-Alamein - theoretically speaking

mbiking123

lazygal wrote: »

You can use it on abortion providers to prove you're pro life??

As Spock said Star Trek II Wrath of Khan 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'

So a few deaths to save many lives !

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

possibly, or maybe changed his view in any case something more important

'Abortion survivor lambasts Obama infanticide vote in ‘withering’ new ad'

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-survivor-lambasts-obama-infanticide-vote-in-withering-new-ad

'The bill was introduced after pro-life nurse Jill Stanek witnessed babies being born alive after failed abortions, then being brought to a room in the Illinois hospital where she worked and left to die.'

'That’s the uncomfortable implication of a hard-hitting new ad released by the Susan B. Anthony List this week, featuring Ohden, who was born alive after a failed saline infusion abortion in 1977.'

Abortions kill people !

....not seeing the importance there.

mbiking123 wrote:

As Spock said Star Trek II Wrath of Khan 'the needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few'

So a few deaths to save many lives !

The comedy of posting this after the above ad is alas lost on you. I will laugh for you, however.

Doctor Strange

mbiking123 wrote: »

As Spock said Star Trek II Wrath of Khan 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'

So a few deaths to save many lives !

....Did you just advocate murder?

Nodin

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

....Did you just advocate murder?

...in a pro-life way.

Delirium

pro-life, unless there's a womans life at stake :rolleyes:

robindch

mbiking123 wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

You can use it on abortion providers to prove you're pro life??

As Spock said Star Trek II Wrath of Khan 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' So a few deaths to save many lives !

I've seen many psychotic, insane religious views here on A+A over the last eight or so years, but that has to be the most chilling.

Assuming you're not trolling, you should be ashamed of yourself, not to mention disgusted that you can't even maintain the superficial, crayon-level rules of your religion, let alone anything more profound.

I'm also tempted to call for a site-ban on your account and report your IP address to the police, however, as I said, I'm not quite sure that you're not simply trolling, so I'd appreciate a clarification immediately. If one isn't forthcoming by Wednesday lunchtime, you will be banned by default. And with no small amount of good-riddance.

Corkfeen

Normally,I'm not very shocked by what I hear on this thread from such types. But that has just changed,that's a horrendous viewpoint to hold.

The Black Oil

Things are getting interesting in Texas again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/04/us-usa-abortion-texas-idUSBRE9A30KM20131104

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

lets say that I would like to own an AK-47, in some places this is legal in Ireland it is not. I don't have the choice, that choice has been removed from me

Actually, you still do have a choice. You can obtain one illegally. Or move somewhere where it's legal to own one.

If I am pointing a loaded AK-47 at you, you don't have much free will. You'll be standing there with your hands in the air

Actually, I would have the exact same amount of free will. My choices might be limited by you holding an AK at me, but I still have the freedom to choose to do whatever I want, the consequences are just different from what they usually are. I could do a bit of a jig for instance, you might shoot me, but I still have the capacity to decide to do that.

And do any of us really have free will ? http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

Yes. The article you linked deals with irrelevant, largely meaningless choices, which are dealt with on an instinctual level rather than by our logic and reasoning.

Even if it were more complex choices being dealt with on a subconscious level, it would still be our brains, our choice, our will.

If you take your view of needing free will and accept that we don't have free will. Then wars, famine etc and all that loss of life is ok, in fact none of us have the right to life

True. I don't accept that we don't have free will though, so your point here is moot.

Unborn things !, I don't know how you could compare an unborn animal to an unborn human. An unborn human is not a 'thing'. Take John Waters the Journalist he is a pro choice supporter, he sees nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn human and yet has stated a number of years back on the late late show that blood sports are wrong, on the night hare coursing was being discussed. I cant understand how someone who can put the life of a hare or any other animal over an unborn human (I don't agree with coursing myself)

It's quite easy, everything that makes a human, human is absent in early foetuses.

I don't really care what John Waters the Journalist has to say on the matter and have no idea why you think it has any relevance to the discussion at hand.

Brian Shanahan

koth wrote: »

pro-life, unless there's a womans life at stake :rolleyes:

Pro-life until the foetus is outside the womb.

mbiking123

robindch wrote: »

report your IP address to the police

Go for it if you feel that way, oh An Garda Suiochana

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=7979

Take a close look at why the comment was made, one stupid comment deserves another. And closely read your own

Easy to know which way the wind blows here, I guess I am a real party pooper.

take a good look at your own comments, and you think I should be ashamed !

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

............

take a good look at your own comments, and you think I should be ashamed !

Do please explain this, as I find it odd.

Doctor Strange

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain this, as I find it odd.

Let me get this. Because we are advocating the killing, nay, murdering of innocent baaaybees be feels entitled to advocate the murdering of people involved in the murdering he does not approve of.

MrP

aloyisious

mbiking123 wrote: »

As Spock said Star Trek II Wrath of Khan 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'

So a few deaths to save many lives !

Does that mean that the murder (eg; not legal state-sanctioned killing of humans) of medical personnel by opponents of abortion (a nuclear option) is OK? That is NOT a theoretical situation for medical personnel in the US.

Sarky

I go to IDWCon and missed all this murder-glorification-as-long-as-you're-gunning-down-those-evil-abortionists fun.

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

own

Easy to know which way the wind blows here, I guess I am a real party pooper.

You've topped mr "let's restrain them all", that's for sure. I think you'd be more suited to a Taliban Ireland, certainly not the one we all aspire to - the kind where women have the right to make decisions over their own bodies. Very much looking to Weds lunchtime.

mbiking123

old hippy wrote: »

You've topped mr "let's restrain them all", that's for sure. I think you'd be more suited to a Taliban Ireland, certainly not the one we all aspire to - the kind where women have the right to make decisions over their own bodies. Very much looking to Weds lunchtime.

I am sure you are

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

I am sure you are

So, you're not going to clarify your comments, then?

Turtwig

old hippy wrote: »

So, you're not going to clarify your comments, then?

Mod: Here's the context. No further clarification is needed. Let's move the thread along now.

pauldla wrote: »

I was wondering about that. What bearing does possession of an AK-47 have on abortion?

lazygal wrote: »

You can use it on abortion providers to prove you're pro life??

mbiking123 wrote: »

As Spock said Star Trek II Wrath of Khan 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'

So a few deaths to save many lives !

Dark humour but the suggestion was first made by another poster that s/he would use an AK on someone else. Just a flippant reply to a remark that may have offended him/her.

mbiking123

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf


'Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives The research into U.S. women’s reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner.

In 1987, a survey of 1900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could not afford a child.

Since 1987, little research in this area
has been conducted in the United States'

The reality of most abortions, just inconvenient. Why not just adopt the child ? Adoption of a child to a couple who want the child is entirely free