Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
1…2930323435…124

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I did

    Thats better.

    Now, do you want to re-phrase your question?


  • Options
    #933
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    The intention is to save the mother's life, not to kill the baby.

    and it's a known consequence that the foetus will die in some scenarios. That falls under oblique intent as mentioned by MrP.

    Or are you suggesting that in every scenario where the intention to save a womans life, that it was possible to save the foetus every time?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #934
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Thats better.

    Now, do you want to re-phrase your question?

    No

    Unlike you I prefer not to use flowery language, you clearly state that in the case of the Mother's life being in danger it's ok for a foetus to be aborted. Are you now saying that in a case like that the abortion shouldn't take place?


  • Options
    #935
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Delirium wrote: »
    and it's a known consequence that the foetus will die in some scenarios. That falls under oblique intent as mentioned by MrP.

    Or are you suggesting that in every scenario where the intention to save a womans life, that it was possible to save the foetus every time?

    Sometimes it is not possible to save the baby, a tragic unintended consequence of the termination to save the mother's life.


  • Options
    #936
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Sometimes it is not possible to save the baby, a tragic unintended consequence of the termination to save the mother's life.

    If the foetus is only a couple of months old then there is not a hope of it surviving, there's nothing unintentional about that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    No

    Unlike you I prefer not to use flowery language, you clearly state that in the case of the Mother's life being in danger it's ok for a foetus to be aborted. Are you now saying that in a case like that the abortion shouldn't take place?

    I never said and nor do I believe 'it's ok to kill a foetus in the womb if it saves the mother's life.' As you contended erroneously.


  • Options
    #938
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    If the foetus is only a couple of months old then there is not a hope of it surviving, there's nothing unintentional about that.

    Its a tragic, unintended consequence of the termination, to save the mother's life.


  • Options
    #939
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Sometimes it is not possible to save the baby, a tragic unintended consequence of the termination to save the mother's life.

    but it's not unintended. The doctors would know that terminating the pregnancy, even though saving the womans life, would mean the foetus would not survive. The intent would be to remove the foetus, thus saving the womans the life. Otherwise, why remove foetus???

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #940
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Delirium wrote: »
    but it's not unintended. The doctors would know that terminating the pregnancy, even though saving the womans life, would mean the foetus would not survive. The intent would be to remove the foetus, thus saving the womans the life. Otherwise, why remove foetus???

    Correct. Terminating the pregnancy, that sometimes will result in the baby not surviving.


  • Options
    #941
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Its a tragic, unintended consequence of the termination, to save the mother's life.

    How is it "unintended" when the outcome is 100% guaranteed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Correct. Terminating the pregnancy, that sometimes will result in the baby not surviving.

    The heels are really dug in it seems.

    There's only one way to terminate the pregnancy (survival of foetus is contingent to the stage of foetal development). I understand why you won't state the obvious, but it is really silly to see all the same.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #943
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Homocide? Isn't that an American legal term?

    Not really. It is a class of offence, of which murder and manslaughter are specific offences. In the uk there is the Homicide Act. Not sure what the equivalent is in Ireland.

    MrP


  • Options
    #944
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,329 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Yes, any act of violence, with the intention to do harm to the victim, and the victim dies, manslaughter could well be considered.

    But in this case the intention was not to harm the victim, only to steal his phone.
    Harming him was an unintended result of the actions required to get the phone.

    So, is an abortion an act of violence? If it is, and the result is the fetus dies, then whether the intention was to help the mother, or steal a phone, the question of intention is the same. The thief didn't intend to kill the owner of the phone, and the doctor didn't intend to kill the fetus. Though actually that's wrong - the doctor in many cases does intend to kill the fetus, he would prefer not to, but has concluded that it's necessary in order to save the woman.

    So the phone thief who accidentally kills the person during the robbery has less intent to kill than the doctor deliberately ending a second trimester pregnancy in order to save the woman.

    You're really not making sense with this "intent" thing.


  • Options
    #945
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But in this case the intention was not to harm the victim, only to steal his phone.
    Harming him was an unintended result of the actions required to get the phone.

    So, is an abortion an act of violence? If it is, and the result is the fetus dies, then whether the intention was to help the mother, or steal a phone, the question of intention is the same. The thief didn't intend to kill the owner of the phone, and the doctor didn't intend to kill the fetus. Though actually that's wrong - the doctor in many cases does intend to kill the fetus, he would prefer not to, but has concluded that it's necessary in order to save the woman.

    So the phone thief who accidentally kills the person during the robbery has less intent to kill than the doctor deliberately ending a second trimester pregnancy in order to save the woman.

    You're really not making sense with this "intent" thing.
    There is a reason he is not making sense. It's because it doesn't actually make any sense. The whole incorrect idea of intent he repeats, along with the 'not intentionally targeting the foetus/baby' nonsense is just a poor attempt to explain why something is ok when, according to their beliefs, it really isn't.

    Personally I think part of the reason why we hear this coming from the RCC heirarchy and organisations like YD is that they know they will have no support if they tried to argue what they really want to argue, no abortion ever, under any circumstances, and they don't actually care is the woman dies, even though, mindbogglingly, the baby will die too.

    So in order for them to not appear to be the monsters they actually are they pretend they are ok with abortion in these certain circumstances. But now there is a flaw in their logic (LOL, yes I know, a flaw in their logic? Really?), if all life is sacred and murdering little babies in the womb is murder then why do you allow in certain circumstances? That makes no sense. And so we have this mental gymnastic nonsense that anyone with an IQ higher than their age can see through.

    They make this stupid argument because they have no choice. They ignore the reality of an abortion carried out to save a woman's life because they have no choice. If they had their way, no abortions and no travel then they would not need this idiotic and incorrect version of intent.

    MrP


  • Options
    #946
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    The intention is to save the mother's life, not to kill the baby.

    The intention is to save the mother BY killing the foetus. The doctors are not performing a termination with any thought that the foetus will survive, they perform actions that if done correctly will guarantee it's death.

    Your reasoning is so skewed by your attempt to align your acceptance of abortion in this instance with your otherwise total objection to it. By using your logic we could as easily say that those who abort a foetus that has been diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder like Downs Syndrome are not actually killing the foetus, they are simply curing the Downs and the death of the foetus is just an unfortunate consequence. It doesn't make any sense.


  • Options
    #947
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Delirium wrote: »
    The heels are really dug in it seems.

    There's only one way to terminate the pregnancy (survival of foetus is contingent to the stage of foetal development). I understand why you won't state the obvious, but it is really silly to see all the same.

    Your judgemental tone is duly noted.


  • Options
    #948
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But in this case the intention was not to harm the victim, only to steal his phone.
    Harming him was an unintended result of the actions required to get the phone.

    So, is an abortion an act of violence? If it is, and the result is the fetus dies, then whether the intention was to help the mother, or steal a phone, the question of intention is the same. The thief didn't intend to kill the owner of the phone, and the doctor didn't intend to kill the fetus. Though actually that's wrong - the doctor in many cases does intend to kill the fetus, he would prefer not to, but has concluded that it's necessary in order to save the woman.

    So the phone thief who accidentally kills the person during the robbery has less intent to kill than the doctor deliberately ending a second trimester pregnancy in order to save the woman.

    You're really not making sense with this "intent" thing.

    Tripping yourself up in what ifs changes nothing from the very basic concept of intent and double effect.


  • Options
    #949
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    robdonn wrote: »
    The intention is to save the mother BY killing the foetus. The doctors are not performing a termination with any thought that the foetus will survive, they perform actions that if done correctly will guarantee it's death.

    Your reasoning is so skewed by your attempt to align your acceptance of abortion in this instance with your otherwise total objection to it. By using your logic we could as easily say that those who abort a foetus that has been diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder like Downs Syndrome are not actually killing the foetus, they are simply curing the Downs and the death of the foetus is just an unfortunate consequence. It doesn't make any sense.

    Absolutely not.


  • Options
    #950
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Your judgemental tone is duly noted.

    His judgemental tone, whether present or not, is not relevant. The content of his post is.


  • Options
    #951
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Your judgemental tone is duly noted.
    care actually respond to the post instead of getting personal?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Absolutely not.

    OK then, if we're working with your logic then I believe I have found a cure for Downs Syndrome! I'm going to make a fortune off of this...


  • Options
    #953
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    robdonn wrote: »
    His judgemental tone, whether present or not, is not relevant. The content of his post is.

    I disagree.


  • Options
    #954
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Delirium wrote: »
    care actually respond to the post instead of getting personal?

    You're the one who kicked off the personals. Hence my noting.


  • Options
    #955
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Overheal wrote: »

    Theres a word for this: when you're not confident in your own argument, you try to predelict/shine spotlight on your opponents upcoming counter-argument to try and pre-deflate it. What I'm hearing is that you're afraid of facts figures and statistics.

    1) A graph was presented with misleading information. I'd understand if it were out by 1%-5%, but the difference between 9% and 17% is nearly double. Were I to post something so inaccurate - that conveniently supports my stance - I imagine I'd have a lot of posters crawling down my throat*. But such inaccuracies are acceptable and don't warrant correction as long as the cause they support is the 'right' one.

    2) "afraid of facts, figures and stats." Yes, I'm deathly-afraid of them...that's why I've quoted official reports and simplified official stats from PP.

    3)
    Overheal wrote: »
    Theres a word for this:
    Which is?...Did you forget what you were supposed to be writing about after you started? Thinly-veiled personal criticisms are so much sweeter when they come from Mods. "Attack the post and not the poster" and all that jazz!

    * not the term I intended to use but 'profanity' in any shape or form will incur penalties...


  • Options
    #956
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    You're the one who kicked off the personals. Hence my noting.

    Feel free to report/quote where I was attacking the poster.

    now, care to actually respond to the content of the post you quoted instead of the tone of it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #957
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Your judgemental tone is duly noted.

    You judge people all the time in here.


  • Options
    #958
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Absolutely not.

    Terminating a pregnancy at 10/12/14 weeks is guaranteed to kill the foetus so there is no "unintended consequences" involved.


  • Options
    #959
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Delirium wrote: »
    Feel free to report/quote where I was attacking the poster.

    now, care to actually respond to the content of the post you quoted instead of the tone of it.

    I'll report where and when necessary.

    Not much to respond to really.

    My heels are well and truly dug in and no attempts from the abortion lobby will weaken my Life advocacy.


  • Options
    #960
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You judge people all the time in here.

    Forgive me if you've answered this already, but how does over 300K babies intentional deaths being facilitated by PP sit with you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Forgive me if you've answered this already, but how does over 300K babies intentional deaths being facilitated by PP sit with you?

    I'm just like you, I advocate abortion when the circumstances call for it.


Advertisement