Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Not a NSA agent

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

I missed the specials on young presidents abroad and gay marriages: stealing your children.

RTE could always start what you want but it would be a new things and they would be accused of pro abortion bias if it isnt 2 hours of partial birth abortions.

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

RTE, as the public service broadcaster should remain fair and impartial, hence it should provide information relating to the relevant law as it is and and proposed amendments to said law. It does not have to provide detail of the procedures carried out when providing an abortion service. What nonsense.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

People already know, there you go again assuming support for abortion equals ignorance of the procedure.

The old 'shure everybody knows that' tactic.

What have you got against giving people information? Why do you want censorship?

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

A partial birth abortion? Oh, that's horrible. That should be illegal!

Oh wait, it is illegal, and nobody has shown any evidence that they do it. The videos in question certainly don't.

If its illegal, which on paper it indeed is, why are there 2,000 PBA's in America every year?

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

You dismiss reference to illegality and then state partial birth abortions (illegal in US as of 2003) are taking place.

The ladies who dominate PP condemn themselves with their own words.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

If its illegal, which on paper it indeed is, why are there 2,000 PBA's in America every year?

Source?

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

The old 'shure everybody knows that' tactic.

What have you got against giving people information? Why do you want censorship?

It's not censorship, it's using the media for the purpose it was intended. Sure where would it end? Is it the media's role to tell me about the fundamentals of skin cancer or what obesity does to my insides or how alcohol is pickling my liver? There are enough pro life personalities and publications that can 'inform' us if they want to. It won't stop women having abortions though.

Two Sheds

galljga1 wrote: »

RTE, as the public service broadcaster should remain fair and impartial, hence it should provide information relating to the relevant law as it is and and proposed amendments to said law. It does not have to provide detail of the procedures carried out when providing an abortion service. What nonsense.

Those days are gone .... if they ever existed.
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0804/20150804_rteradio1-theraydarcyshow-kateoconne_c20824509_20824523_232_drm_.mp3

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

Those days are gone .... if they ever existed.
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0804/20150804_rteradio1-theraydarcyshow-kateoconne_c20824509_20824523_232_drm_.mp3

So you want me to listen to 30 mins of Ray Darcy. No thanks.
Please make your point.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not censorship, it's using the media for the purpose it was intended. Sure where would it end? Is it the media's role to tell me about the fundamentals of skin cancer or what obesity does to my insides or how alcohol is pickling my liver? There are enough pro life personalities and publications that can 'inform' us if they want to. It won't stop women having abortions though.

Too much information is bad ....especially for women.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

Too much information is bad ....especially for women.

What?? What does that mean?

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

Source?

This is a once off where I do your research for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Two Sheds

galljga1 wrote: »

So you want me to listen to 30 mins of Ray Darcy. No thanks.
Please make your point.

You're making my point for me.

Black Menorca

The Irish 'Liberal' cohort are in a spin by this revelation of the true nature of planned Parenthood.

We always knew what they were like but this sting has well and truly rumbled PP for the immoral, cold and ruthless organisation they are.

Two Sheds

Black Menorca wrote: »

The Irish 'Liberal' cohort are in a spin by this revelation of the true nature of planned Parenthood.

We always knew what they were like but this sting has well and truly rumbled PP for the immoral, cold and ruthless organisation they are.

Even a pro-choice journalist knows that the Irish media are censoring the Planned Parenthood story -

For those of you who aren't aware of the story (and the mainstream press has been predictably quiet)..

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/odoherty-us-abortion-scandal-will-cause-ripple-here-too-31416185.html

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

This is a once off where I do your research for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

from your link:

In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) was signed into law; the House passed it on October 2 with a vote of 281-142, the Senate passed it on October 21 with a vote of 64-34, and President George W. Bush signed it into law on November 5.


Beginning in early 2004, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, and abortion doctors in Nebraska challenged the ban in federal district courts in the Northern District of California, Southern District of New York, and District of Nebraska. All three district courts ruled the ban unconstitutional that same year. Their respective federal courts of appeals—the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit, and Eighth Circuit, respectively—affirmed these rulings on appeal.


The three cases were all appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and were consolidated into the case Gonzales v. Carhart. On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by a decision of 5-4.[28] Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority and was joined by Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts. A dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer.

So how did they record 2,000 partial birth abortions given that's illegal? The number of abortions was recorded in 2000, before it was illegal. 15 years ago.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

This is a once off where I do your research for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

You may need to look up the term "onus of proof".

From your link:

Since the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the United States and similar state laws, providers of late-term abortions typically induce and document fetal demise before beginning any late-term abortion procedure. Since the bans only apply to abortions of living fetuses, this protects the abortion providers from prosecution. The most common method of inducing fetal demise is to inject the fetal heart with concentrated potassium chloride or digoxin using a long needle guided by ultrasound.

Oh, and Intact dilation and extraction is not the same as partial birth abortion, which is a political term not a medical one.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

You're making my point for me.

so your point was that someone won't listen to 30 mins of Darcy?

what has that to do with the topic?

Two Sheds

Delirium wrote: »

so your point was that someone won't listen to 30 mins of Darcy?

what has that to do with the topic?

Willful ignorance is from the same stable as a fondness for censorship.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Please point out where any of our media has relayed the facts about the practise of abortion to the public.

No.

The media is not the outlet that should be held responsible for educating a public about abortion. As I said, a secondary school - an entity of the education system - educated me personally about the abortion procedure. The media had nothing to do with that. As stated by others but that you seem to find so ironically ironic: the media should not be the primary outlet of education on this issue. The media is the entity to yell "Hey! Stuff is happening!" but do you honestly think every time Israel came up in the news, it would be the onus of the media system to stop everything and explain in the necessary detail all the issues and tapestried history of the middle east to explain to a complete plumb-ignorant pleb who switched channels from watching Dora the Explorer, what Israel is and why there is a big hullaballoo, or are they simply only tasked with saying "Hezbollah this, rockets that, yesterday morning. Now for the weather."

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

I'd much rather get my medical advice and/or knowledge from doctors, not pundits and news anchors or a talk show host. Again, the media reports news and current events, it is not the ideal source of education on the background of any given issue. You're neglecting the other public services your taxes pay for that keep you informed as a citizen beyond the boundaries of a formal school system, like your local library. Even better, you can schedule appointments with real medical professionals to get personalized information about abortion.

But as if to prove what I'm at...

Two Sheds wrote: »

Willful ignorance is from the same stable as a fondness for censorship.

..you twist your own argument for the sake of argument, now saying that it is censorship because people don't have the time to listen to a media man about whatever issue it is that you feel that they should be listening to? Which is why again I say: sex education is taught in the classroom, not in the media; and if you need more specific information there is self-motivated research available as well as medical professionals to seek personal advice and information from, for any person's specific situation.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Illegal is your word.

Immoral is mine. Engineering a partial birth abortion to get an 'intact sample'.
Sick, just sick.

Yeah how dare they maximise the usefulness of fetal tissue (stem cells etc) for research that can further mankind. You're absolutely right, absolutely NOTHING good should come out of an abortion.The woman should just be slut shamed and the fetus should be thrown in the bin with so many used tampons.

Or - we could come off the high horse and be a bit more pragmatic, yeah? Like what would you prefer, that we just pumped the uterus full of toxins and other drugs to complete the abortion, making the tissue non-viable for research? Why not explore more efficient procedures that deliver the same result: an abortion that results in a healthy woman afterward, as well as a viable amount of fetal tissue which can be used to further medical science? Fetal tissue has been used in research since the 1930s.

How is fetal tissue used in research: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/index.html

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

You may need to look up the term "onus of proof".

From your link:



Oh, and Intact dilation and extraction is not the same as partial birth abortion, which is a political term not a medical one.

Go on, whats the difference. This will be good. Angels on a pin come to mind.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

No.

The media is not the outlet that should be held responsible for educating a public about abortion. As I said, a secondary school - an entity of the education system - educated me personally about the abortion procedure. The media had nothing to do with that. As stated by others but that you seem to find so ironically ironic: the media should not be the primary outlet of education on this issue. The media is the entity to yell "Hey! Stuff is happening!" but do you honestly think every time Israel came up in the news, it would be the onus of the media system to stop everything and explain in the necessary detail all the issues and tapestried history of the middle east to explain to a complete plumb-ignorant pleb who switched channels from watching Dora the Explorer, what Israel is and why there is a big hullaballoo, or are they simply only tasked with saying "Hezbollah this, rockets that, yesterday morning. Now for the weather."

I'd much rather get my medical advice and/or knowledge from doctors, not pundits and news anchors or a talk show host. Again, the media reports news and current events, it is not the ideal source of education on the background of any given issue. You're neglecting the other public services your taxes pay for that keep you informed as a citizen beyond the boundaries of a formal school system, like your local library. Even better, you can schedule appointments with real medical professionals to get personalized information about abortion.

But as if to prove what I'm at...



..you twist your own argument for the sake of argument, now saying that it is censorship because people don't have the time to listen to a media man about whatever issue it is that you feel that they should be listening to? Which is why again I say: sex education is taught in the classroom, not in the media; and if you need more specific information there is self-motivated research available as well as medical professionals to seek personal advice and information from, for any person's specific situation.



Yeah how dare they maximise the usefulness of fetal tissue (stem cells etc) for research that can further mankind. You're absolutely right, absolutely NOTHING good should come out of an abortion.The woman should just be slut shamed and the fetus should be thrown in the bin with so many used tampons.

Or - we could come off the high horse and be a bit more pragmatic, yeah? Like what would you prefer, that we just pumped the uterus full of toxins and other drugs to complete the abortion, making the tissue non-viable for research? Why not explore more efficient procedures that deliver the same result: an abortion that results in a healthy woman afterward, as well as a viable amount of fetal tissue which can be used to further medical science? Fetal tissue has been used in research since the 1930s.

How is fetal tissue used in research: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/index.html

Abortion = sex education?

"slut-shamed" - why is it only pro-choice who use that term about women?

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Abortion = sex education?

"slut-shamed" - why is it only pro-choice who use that term about women?

If that's the only thing you can even say against my argument, I think you've lost ground of your position.

Abortion is a component of sex education and slut shaming was a term used earlier in the thread, so it was salient when writing the post - but sure, just because *I* say it, that must surely mean *only* pro-choice people have ever used the term about women. Quite the gaping logical fallacy you have there.

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

You're making my point for me.

That is obtuse and quite pointless.

Jayop

Two Sheds wrote: »

Abortion = sex education?

"slut-shamed" - why is it only pro-choice who use that term about women?

The don't use that term about woman, they use that term to refer to the people who try to shame woman about their decisions.

Overheal

^ men can absolutely be slut shamers.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

If that's the only thing you can even say against my argument, I think you've lost ground of your position.

Abortion is a component of sex education and slut shaming was a term used earlier in the thread, so it was salient when writing the post - but sure, just because *I* say it, that must surely mean *only* pro-choice people have ever used the term about women. Quite the gaping logical fallacy you have there.

The words are yours.

Overheal

They are, and I explained them. Did you care to try and refute anything else about my argument or just poke at the semantics some more?

lazybones32

Jayop wrote: »

What about the families of woman who died because they weren't allowed an abortion. Do they have regrets?

Such as? I can't recall any woman dying in Ireland because they weren't allowed an abortion. Feel free to enlighten us.

Overheal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Such as? I can't recall any woman dying in Ireland because they weren't allowed an abortion. Feel free to enlighten us.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Savita+Halappanavar&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

Savita Halappanavar, Galway.

The pregnant 31-year-old died in an Irish hospital in October last year.
She had asked for a termination after being told she was having a miscarriage, but staff refused. Days later, she died from infection.
A 257-page report by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) was issued on Wednesday.
It found there were many missed opportunities, that if acted on might have changed the outcome for her.
The report was conducted after the HIQA was asked by the Republic of Ireland's Health Service Executive to investigate the safety, quality and standards of services provided at University Hospital Galway.
Mrs Halappanavar died one week after she was admitted to the hospital when she was 17 weeks pregnant and miscarrying.