Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

otpmb · 10-08-2015 12:17am

Black Menorca wrote: »

An induced labour is a termination of pregnancy.

This can only be justified if the intention is to save the mother's life.

But according to the Roman Catholic Church both the mother and the baby deserve the right to life, surely an induced labour before a baby is viable is a direct targeting of the baby. Saying this is justified if the intention is to save the mother's life, is clearly treating the unborn innocent baby as the one responsible for causing harm to it's mother, is that not morally wrong?

volchitsa · 10-08-2015 12:21am

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because with the other two methods there is a direct and intentional attack on the unborn baby.

Are you claiming that a surgeon who decides to use methotrexate instead of surgery, telling the couple this was in order to maximize their chances of having another baby, would be lying and that in fact what he really wanted was to harm the current fetus?

Or do you agree that the surgeon, no matter what the technique used, is only trying to save the woman's life?

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 12:33am

Two Sheds wrote: »

Is the dam about to break on the Irish media?
2 hours ago -

Explainer: Why everyone is arguing about Planned Parenthood in America

Congratulations to Journal.ie for breaking the NUJ's embargo.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 12:35am

otpmb wrote: »

But according to the Roman Catholic Church both the mother and the baby deserve the right to life, surely an induced labour before a baby is viable is a direct targeting of the baby. Saying this is justified if the intention is to save the mother's life, is clearly treating the unborn innocent baby as the one responsible for causing harm to it's mother, is that not morally wrong?

Because the intention is to save the mother's life.

robdonn · 10-08-2015 12:35am

Black Menorca wrote: »

Congratulations to Journal.ie for breaking the NUJ's embargo.

What embargo? Like with most things so far, you have yet again failed to provide evidence for your assertions. Your opinions, no matter how dearly held, are still not facts.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 12:36am

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you claiming that a surgeon who decides to use methotrexate instead of surgery, telling the couple this was in order to maximize their chances of having another baby, would be lying and that in fact what he really wanted was to harm the current fetus?

Or do you agree that the surgeon, no matter what the technique used, is only trying to save the woman's life?

It is a direct attack on the baby, therefore unjustified.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 12:38am

robdonn wrote: »

What embargo? Like with most things so far, you have yet again failed to provide evidence for your assertions. Your opinions, no matter how dearly held, are still not facts.

http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1156-the-abortion-story-that-has-never-been-written-and-never-will

volchitsa · 10-08-2015 12:41am

Black Menorca wrote: »

It is a direct attack on the baby, therefore unjustified.

In both cases the fetus will die, it's not as though one method gives it an even slightly better chance of survival than the other. The only difference is one method leaves the mother minus a Fallopian tube, the other doesn't.

So you're re saying that it's better to surgically mutilate the mother, possibly leaving her infertile, for no other reason than to pretend that the fetus isn't being killed, even though everyone knows it is.

Ok, I think we've got that.

You do realize it's completely crazy though, don't you?

robdonn · 10-08-2015 12:48am

Black Menorca wrote: »

http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1156-the-abortion-story-that-has-never-been-written-and-never-will

You're kidding, right? You need better sources than a paper that publishes articles like PAEDOPHILES SET TO POSE AS GAYS TO MARRY AND ADOPT KIDS...

otpmb · 10-08-2015 12:58am

Black Menorca wrote: »

It is a direct attack on the baby, therefore unjustified.

Okay, I'll move on, if a woman has cancer, and treatment for the cancer would result in the mutilation and death of the baby, assuming the woman would be able to carry the baby to term but die soon after, do you believe treatment should be withheld, or should she be granted an abortion, or should she be given treatment which would harm the foetus?

Also, there honestly doesn't seem to be much I can find online, if you know some internet site that explains this in more detail, I'd be quite interested.

Overheal · 10-08-2015 2:56am

umop apisdn wrote: »

Well taking another life is not necessary then.

This thread is also largely about the situation in the USA; we are confusing the issue by trying to apply Irish law to an American situation. There's actually a meaty discussion specific to Irish abortion laws going on in the atheism forum that is worth a read.

Overheal · 10-08-2015 2:58am

Two Sheds wrote: »

The Extraordinary Moral Hypocrisy of President Obama

No president in history ever flew a true straight arrow. Granted, this one is a Nobel Prize winning Drone Army commander

Overheal · 10-08-2015 3:01am

robdonn wrote: »

You're kidding, right? You need better sources than a paper that publishes articles like PAEDOPHILES SET TO POSE AS GAYS TO MARRY AND ADOPT KIDS...

You definitely aren't going to be adopting kids if you're on the sex offenders registry: those records are very public, there is zero cost to anyone who wants to use the database for such a background check. But, I digress.

Delirium · 10-08-2015 8:49am

Black Menorca wrote: »

Congratulations to Journal.ie for breaking the NUJ's embargo.

That's it! you're getting a dictionary for Christmas! :P

Two Sheds · 10-08-2015 2:52pm

Black Menorca wrote: »

http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1156-the-abortion-story-that-has-never-been-written-and-never-will

It makes you wonder if we have a democracy - when decisions enforcing media bias are made in a foreign country that has traditionally been somewhat antagonistic towards this state. Is the NUJ the ultimate inside man?

robdonn · 10-08-2015 3:15pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

It makes you wonder if we have a democracy - when decisions enforcing media bias are made in a foreign country that has traditionally been somewhat antagonistic towards this state. Is the NUJ the ultimate inside man?

We should always be aware of media bias, whether they are hiding an abortion conspiracy from us, or if they are:

Telling us to sink immigrant ships...

Calling for the arrest of advertisers with different taste...

Denying the Holocaust....

Sources are important people! The Kilkenny Journal, in it's current form at least, is not a news website. It is a biased mouth-piece for a small number of very hateful people.

Two Sheds · 10-08-2015 3:25pm

robdonn wrote: »

We should always be aware of media bias, whether they are hiding an abortion conspiracy from us, or if they are:

Telling us to sink immigrant ships...

Calling for the arrest of advertisers with different taste...

Denying the Holocaust....

Sources are important people! The Kilkenny Journal, in it's current form at least, is not a news website. It is a biased mouth-piece for a small number of very hateful people.

We should always be aware of those who want to shoot the messenger.

If the NUJ is directing members in their work of reporting the facts then I think we should be made aware of it.
I don't see any other media outlet willing to take it on. I wonder why that is?

Oh, the irony of members of the NUJ claiming that the Vatican is influencing matters in this state.

robdonn · 10-08-2015 3:26pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

I don't see any other media outlet willing to take it on. I wonder why that is?

I also don't see any other media outlets willing to take on Holocaust Denial. I wonder why that is?

robdonn · 10-08-2015 3:35pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

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.

The figures in the chart do not match those from either the 2012-2013 report or the 2013-2014 report, and since we do not have information from earlier years that it may be drawing from, or does the chart state the date that the data is from, then we can assume that it is wrong and you are correct for pointing out the error.

So let's just spell out the correct data as given by the reports.

Year|STI/STD Testing & Treatment |Contraception |Other Women's Health Services |Cancer Screening & Prevention |Abortion Services |Other Services
2012-2013 |41%|34%|11%|10%|3%|1%
2013-2014|42%|34%|11%|9%|3%|1%

It seems that the discrepancy between the chart and the actual data is between STI/STD Treatment and Cancer Prevention. It might be that certain services, specifically HPV vaccinations, might be the reason for the discrepancy as it is designed to protect from cancer caused by an STI?

I understand that your main argument in your post was the misrepresentation of PP as being primarily(-ish) a cancer screening provider and the figures show that it is not their primary service, but it is one of the services that relies on the government funding that is being cut.

Two Sheds · 10-08-2015 4:03pm

robdonn wrote: »

I also don't see any other media outlets willing to take on Holocaust Denial. I wonder why that is?

Really? You're equating the two?
Really?

robdonn · 10-08-2015 4:28pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

Really? You're equating the two?
Really?

No, I'm not equating the two. I'm questioning the validity of a news source that believes that quoting an entire chapter of a book about Holocauat denial counts as an article (no postscript or anything). I question the bias of a news source that writes an article suggesting that we sink ships carrying immigrants fleeing their war torn homes. I question every claim that they make as they have shown absolutely zero journalistic integrity.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 5:50pm

volchitsa wrote: »

In both cases the fetus will die, it's not as though one method gives it an even slightly better chance of survival than the other. The only difference is one method leaves the mother minus a Fallopian tube, the other doesn't.

So you're re saying that it's better to surgically mutilate the mother, possibly leaving her infertile, for no other reason than to pretend that the fetus isn't being killed, even though everyone knows it is.

Ok, I think we've got that.

You do realize it's completely crazy though, don't you?

I stand by my already expressed views.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 5:52pm

robdonn wrote: »

You're kidding, right? You need better sources than a paper that publishes articles like PAEDOPHILES SET TO POSE AS GAYS TO MARRY AND ADOPT KIDS...

Come on. Thats just one source for the same story. The NUJ censor abortion stories.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 5:54pm

otpmb wrote: »

Okay, I'll move on, if a woman has cancer, and treatment for the cancer would result in the mutilation and death of the baby, assuming the woman would be able to carry the baby to term but die soon after, do you believe treatment should be withheld, or should she be granted an abortion, or should she be given treatment which would harm the foetus?

Also, there honestly doesn't seem to be much I can find online, if you know some internet site that explains this in more detail, I'd be quite interested.

And here folks is the raison d'etre for many advocates for the abortion industry. moving from one scenario to the other in a vain attempt to justify killing unborn babies.

I'm not playing your game I'm afraid.

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-08-2015 5:56pm

Black Menorca wrote: »

Come on. Thats just one source for the same story. The NUJ censor abortion stories.

Evidence for this claim?

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 5:57pm

Two Sheds wrote: »

Really? You're equating the two?
Really?

Far more lives have been lost to the abortion industry than Jews in the holocaust.

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 5:59pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Evidence for this claim?

As I said to another poster last week, I'm not doing your research for you.

Google is your friend, use it.

If you don't believe me, fine. Call me a liar. I'm not jumping to your or anyone else's command.

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-08-2015 6:04pm

Black Menorca wrote: »

As I said to another poster last week, I'm not doing your research for you.

Google is your friend, use it.

If you don't believe me, fine. Call me a liar. I'm not jumping to your or anyone else's command.

You made the claim that the NUJ are censoring stories about abortion, either post your evidence, not asking you to do any homework for me am asking you to back up your claims with links and evidence. You do realise this is how debates work right?

Black Menorca · 10-08-2015 6:05pm

Overheal wrote: »

This thread is also largely about the situation in the USA; we are confusing the issue by trying to apply Irish law to an American situation. There's actually a meaty discussion specific to Irish abortion laws going on in the atheism forum that is worth a read.

I've observed there's a very disrespectful reaction to people of religious faith in that section of Boards.

I think I'll stay away. Life's too short to be going through such negativity.

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-08-2015 6:05pm

Black Menorca wrote: »

Far more lives have been lost to the abortion industry than Jews in the holocaust.

Disgusting remark to make.

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Comments