Abortion Discussion

Morag

If she wanted help to travel for an abortion she'd be better off getting in touch with the Abortion Support Network rather then a catholic priest.

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

no, your just getting personal with your questions. I don't ask you personal questions and you don't ask me. keep to the rules and everybody is happy

Yes I asked one personal question to try and determine whether your statement re: pregnancy is wonderful stems from personal experience as I thought it was pertinent. In the same way as I would ask someone who said they hate calamari if they had ever tasted calamari or were they one of those who shun food just because it is 'foreign'.

I then said I understood why you did not answer - as is your right - but pointed out that not doing so also calls your pronouncements as to wonderfullness into question as you may never have been pregnant and therefore have no idea what you are talking about.

Frito

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, that's just a different situation. As we'll have already discussed, the foetus is a foetus - not a child. The child is a fully fledged citizen, like any of us. Presumably, there's (in principle) more potential donors of the organ apart from the parents. In the case of a 26 week foetus, there's no viable way of reaching full term apart from staying in that particular woman's body.

I'm not, you'll appreciate, advocating any particular solution to that conflict of rights. I'm simply pointing out that the conflict is there, and unique to the situation of a pregnant woman.

Even though the situations are different, I'm not sure the donation analogy is redundant.

Let's suppose there is a child awaiting an organ and several months ago you joined the donation register. Fifteen people were identified as suitable donors, and fourteen people have since declined donation. Although the buck stops with you, you still have the right to decline.
In essence, the 'unique situation of pregnancy' presents a contradiction where a foetus has more rights to the use of another's organ than a child does, even if the same foetus becomes a child who requires an organ where 15/15 donors decline (as is their right). This is before we address the conflict of competing rights between foetus and woman.
Given this, I believe the contradiction raised by arguing pregnancy as a special case outweighs it's plea to the conflict it poses.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes I asked one personal question to try and determine whether your statement re:

I then said I understood why you did not answer - as is your right - .

as per the rules, lets stick to the rules

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

as per the rules, lets stick to the rules

If you believe I have broken the rules please report me.

I find the mods in this forum perfectly capable of doing their jobs and fair in infracting when it is required. I was not aware you were one of them - isn't back seat modding also against the rules?

Is this another example of don't do as I do. Do as I say?

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I find the mods in this forum perfectly capable of doing their jobs QUOTE]

That's good

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

I don't live in Kansas

But am sure if she contacted her local parish priest, something could be done to help her

Parish priest?! All women with unwanted pregnancies in Kansas should just contact their parish priest to help them with food, rent, maternity clothes and medical so that they can give babies up for adoption?! Is that really the best you can do?

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Parish priest?! All women with unwanted pregnancies in Kansas should just contact their parish priest to help them with food, rent, maternity clothes and medical so that they can give babies up for adoption?! Is that really the best you can do?

Well when someone says unwanted that is a problem, she should consider I have a child I am unable to support

Frame of mind is all wrong

Frito

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well when someone says unwanted that is a problem, she should consider I have a child I am unable to support

Frame of mind is all wrong

So don't think of abortion as murder, just the removal of a clump of cells.

Frame of mind is all wrong.

mbiking123

Frito wrote: »

So don't think of abortion as murder, just the removal of a clump of cells.

Frame of mind is all wrong.

Could say the same about you

Frito

mbiking123 wrote: »

Could say the same about you

That's my point! We could all say the same about each other, so it's meaningless.

Turtwig

Bah,

Grumpy mod is on scene. Don't have time to read the back log of posts on this thread. May do so later. Either way, consider this fair warning. Any future posts that are ignoring previously given mod advice about back seat moderation and flippant remarks will be carded/deleted or eaten.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Bah,

Grumpy mod is on scene. Don't have time to read the back log of posts on this thread. May do so later. Either way, consider this fair warning. Any future posts that are ignoring previously given mod advice about back seat moderation and flippant remarks will be carded/deleted or eaten.

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well when someone says unwanted that is a problem, she should consider I have a child I am unable to support

Frame of mind is all wrong

We're talking right here about women having PREGNANCIES they are unable to support.

Kansas is a majority (60%) Protestant state. Around 10% have no religion. Around 11,000 women have abortions in Kansas every year.

You're saying that the majority of these 11,000 women should throw themselves at the feet of a Catholic priest and expect the Catholic church to support them so that they can give babies away.

I know what frame of mind is all wrong.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm already maxed out on salicylates thank you very much.

gaynorvader

I'm going to bed. The rest of you should too. You're arguments have given way to your frustration and would be better written tomorrow after a good night's rest.

Turtwig

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm going to bed. The rest of you should too. You're arguments have given way to your frustration and would be better written tomorrow after a good night's rest.

Do you mean 'tomorrow' tomorrow, or 'tomorrow' today?

robindch

^^^ "Yes".

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

^^^ "Yes".

Or

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Kansas is a majority (60%) Protestant state. Around 10% have no religion. Around 11,000 women have abortions in Kansas every year.

You're saying that the majority of these 11,000 women should throw themselves at the feet of a Catholic priest and expect the Catholic church to support them so that they can give babies away.

back to religion, go to the local vicar so

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

back to religion, go to the local vicar so

What about the non religious ones? What about the Jewish women? What about the ones who just want to have abortions?

Do you have a solution to unwanted, unaffordable pregnancy that doesn't involve begging for charity from churches?

kylith

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You're saying that the majority of these 11,000 women should throw themselves at the feet of a Catholic priest and expect the Catholic church to support them so that they can give babies away.

Actually, I quite like the sound of that. If religious people want to lessen the number of abortions they could offer to financially support women who are undergoing crisis pregnancies.

Lingua Franca

How long do you think that would last before they go back to their "before the quickening" stance? I'd give it 6 weeks.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Actually, I quite like the sound of that. If religious people want to lessen the number of abortions they could offer to financially support women who are undergoing crisis pregnancies.

Hmmmmmm...fairly sure some variation of this has been tried in the past.

It usually goes :

Religious support 'Fallen women'
Fallen women should make contribution.

Laundry.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmmmmm...fairly sure some variation of this has been tried in the past.

It usually goes :

Religious support 'Fallen women'
Fallen women should make contribution.

Laundry.

Ya but the discussion is on Kansas, for an unemployed woman, no health cover and no benefits. Possibly her other half might be considered

Takes two to tango

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ya but the discussion is on Kansas, for an unemployed woman, no health cover and no benefits. Possibly her other half might be considered

Takes two to tango

No - the discussion is about Ireland.

You are trying to make the discussion about Kansas based on a decades old study.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - the discussion is about Ireland.

You are trying to make the discussion about Kansas based on a decades old study.

Ok so, so given the scenario it could not happen in Ireland. So the excuse given for needing an abortion would not arise in ireland

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ok so, so given the scenario it could not happen in Ireland. So the excuse given for needing an abortion would not arise in ireland

You mean the scenario that you introduced is not relevant to Ireland?


Really? I am surprised.

However, are you now stating that we have no poverty in Ireland??? I am wondering as I seem to recall that the reason you introduced that particular red herring was to show that abortion was primarily as a result of financial pressure.

Well, all those people who have suffered wage cuts, struggling to pay mortgages on properties worth a fraction of what they paid for them, facing increased cost of living, unemployed and struggling to feed their existing children etc etc etc will be jolly glad to hear there are no financial impediments to having children so they should just pop babbies out secure in the knowledge that they will suffer no financial hardship as a result.

And if they do they can always go ask the parish priest for help....

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean the scenario that you introduced is not relevant to Ireland?


Really? I am surprised.

However, are you now stating that we have no poverty in Ireland??? I am wondering as I seem to recall that the reason you introduced that particular red herring was to show that abortion was primarily as a result of financial pressure.

Well, all those people who have suffered wage cuts, struggling to pay mortgages on properties worth a fraction of what they paid for them, facing increased cost of living, unemployed and struggling to feed their existing children etc etc etc will be jolly glad to hear there are no financial impediments to having children so they should just pop babbies out secure in the knowledge that they will suffer no financial hardship as a result.

And if they do they can always go ask the parish priest for help....

Eh hold on now, that was information I found on why women have abortions, nobody could find anything better. Not me who went off talking about maternity leave etc in Kansas, I merely entertained the discussion.

Well in Ireland the p.p. gives out the St V de P money, not really money food vouchers. I know you knew that ! Can always adopt the child.

When it comes to the mess we are in, well that's what happens for going against the advice that we paid million's for. But then that's not the children's fault, they are innocent for the fine mess we are all in

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

Eh hold on now, that was information I found on why women have abortions, nobody could find anything better. Not me who went off talking about maternity leave etc in Kansas, I merely entertained the discussion.

You began the discussion by bringing up a study from Kansas talking about why women have abortions there which said that "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."

...and said that they should just have the child adopted, adoption being completely free, ignoring absolutely every possible financial, emotional and social dilemma faced by women with crisis pregnancies.

I was particularly irked by your ignorance of medical care costs and access to benefits in the USA and correctly guessed that you have no comprehension of the issues faced. The best you could manage is that that 10000 women should ask for charity from the churches, when the churches in Kansas would surely be under pressure to support 10000 unwanted children as well.

Well in Ireland the p.p. gives out the St V de P money, not really money food vouchers. I know you knew that ! Can always adopt the child.

How long do you think they could keep that up for if everyone woman with a crisis pregnancy came to them asking for 9 months of support? And how many women do you know who would take charity from the church?

When it comes to the mess we are in, well that's what happens for going against the advice that we paid million's for. But then that's not the children's fault, they are innocent for the fine mess we are all in

Ah, the babbys.



The point I was making is that adoption is not an easy answer to a crisis pregnancy, especially in the example study you provided. Given that your solution was church charity, we can all agree that your point is dead.