Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it a negative view to suggest that there are perils and issues of being born in abject poverty?

Is it fantastical to pretend that there are not?

I lament the person who thinks killing a baby in the womb can ever be a positive alternative.

So sad for the person extolling such views and for society as a whole.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

I lament the person who thinks killing a baby in the womb can ever be a positive alternative.



So sad for the person extolling such views and for society as a whole.

More of the same Moral High Ground Fallacy.

Penny Tration

Black Menorca wrote: »

The "but, but, but, what if" questions get tiring very quickly as all they are is an attempt to deflect from the core subject.

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!

Black Menorca

Overheal wrote: »

More of the same Moral High Ground Fallacy.

It is what it is.

Delirium

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A loving caring god that would let millions starve to death rather than just give them a little rain .

MOD NOTE

Lets try and keep to the topic please.

Everybody else, please try raise the standard a bit. Starting to see more quips/talking past each other and not enough discussion of the topic.

Thanks in advance.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

The "but, but, but, what if" questions get tiring very quickly as all they are is an attempt to deflect from the core subject.

How about the direct questions then, like do you believe that a woman's bodily integrity should be removed for the length of her pregnancy?

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

How about the direct questions then, like do you believe that a woman's bodily integrity should be removed for the length of her pregnancy?

I am all for bodily integrity once there is no intentional harm caused herself or her unborn baby.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

I am all for bodily integrity once there is no intentional harm caused herself or her unborn baby.

But mental.and physical harm to a 14 year old girl is ok with you because you would be happy forcing her to give birth to her rapists baby.

Astrolabe

lazygal wrote: »

Or are you going to peddle the fiction that they weren't abortions but terminations?

Lazygal I'm not sure I understand what you mean, because an abortion is a termination. They are literally the same thing. I've never heard anyone, not even doctors who carry out abortions, trying to claim there is any sort of difference. It's a bit like saying "I had an appendectomy", or saying "I had my appendix out". It's just two different ways of saying the same thing.

You mentioned several people who have certain diseases which are particular to pregnant woman, but my point still stands: Pregnancy is never a threat to a woman's LIFE. I did not say it would not affect her health. A threat to some-one's life literally means that they could die as a direct result of it. It's a different thing altogether to talk about diseases - which I have no doubt exist - which could affect the woman's long-term health.

All of the obstetricians and oncologists I spoke to last year while I was pregnant and had cancer, have never heard of any single case in the world where pregnancy has killed a woman. Even in underdeveloped countries where healthcare is poor, women sometimes die in childbirth, due to haemorrhaging etc - but that's different. There, it's not pregnancy that has killed the woman, but loss of blood, infection, complications arising from childbirth due to poor facilities/care/training/medicine etc, which could have also killed the woman if she had any sort of operation.

I don't have a link to the HSE study to hand, and I am having trouble finding it. I will keep looking, and will post it as soon as I can find it. The study exists, though, and its findings were very real.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

I am all for bodily integrity once there is no intentional harm caused herself or her unborn baby.

So you support bodily integrity, but... meaning that you don't.

You find an exception to a basic human right, one so fundamental that it is considered to last beyond one's own right to life as your bodily integrity is upheld long after your death. You wish to take this right from someone because you believe that someone else's right is more important.

Yet you object so thoroughly when you complain of others taking rights away. There is a hypocrisy in that that has shone brightly through your arguments in this thread. You demand that we recognise rights in the unborn when you so objectively reject the rights of the women carrying it. That woman is not an object or a thing, you have no claim over her or what she does to her own body. She is the master of herself, not you or anyone else.

We could argue the finer points of when and how terminations are performed, real issues like viability and ways to help avoid crisis pregnancies with realistic and real support, but at no point should you ever be allowed to tell a woman, or anyone, what they can and cannot do with their own body. Your refusal to accept the most basic and fundamental right that any individual can have is why this argument simply goes in circles.

robdonn

Astrolabe wrote: »

You mentioned several people who have certain diseases which are particular to pregnant woman, but my point still stands: Pregnancy is never a threat to a woman's LIFE. I did not say it would not affect her health. A threat to some-one's life literally means that they could die as a direct result of it. It's a different thing altogether to talk about diseases - which I have no doubt exist - which could affect the woman's long-term health.

An ectopic pregnancy is a very real threat to a woman's life, it is neither a disease nor illness that is simply particular to a pregnant woman, it is uniquely caused by pregnancy.

Astrolabe wrote: »

All of the obstetricians and oncologists I spoke to last year while I was pregnant and had cancer, have never heard of any single case in the world where pregnancy has killed a woman. Even in underdeveloped countries where healthcare is poor, women sometimes die in childbirth, due to haemorrhaging etc - but that's different. There, it's not pregnancy that has killed the woman, but loss of blood, infection, complications arising from childbirth due to poor facilities/care/training/medicine etc, which could have also killed the woman if she had any sort of operation.

And bullets don't kill people either, it is simply the resulting effect that a bullet has when it tears through human flesh, organs and tissue, all of which can happen through any number of different traumas but happened now because of that bullet.

Astrolabe wrote: »

I don't have a link to the HSE study to hand, and I am having trouble finding it. I will keep looking, and will post it as soon as I can find it. The study exists, though, and its findings were very real.

I'd love to read that study (genuinely, I'm an absolute nerd when it comes to medical papers), do you remember anything about it? Title or anything? I can help try find it.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

So you support bodily integrity, but... meaning that you don't.

You find an exception to a basic human right, one so fundamental that it is considered to last beyond one's own right to life as your bodily integrity is upheld long after your death. You wish to take this right from someone because you believe that someone else's right is more important.

Yet you object so thoroughly when you complain of others taking rights away. There is a hypocrisy in that that has shone brightly through your arguments in this thread. You demand that we recognise rights in the unborn when you so objectively reject the rights of the women carrying it. That woman is not an object or a thing, you have no claim over her or what she does to her own body. She is the master of herself, not you or anyone else.

We could argue the finer points of when and how terminations are performed, real issues like viability and ways to help avoid crisis pregnancies with realistic and real support, but at no point should you ever be allowed to tell a woman, or anyone, what they can and cannot do with their own body. Your refusal to accept the most basic and fundamental right that any individual can have is why this argument simply goes in circles.

Pregnancy is an onerous responsibility on all women who experience it.

To do no intentional harm, do everything in her power to tend to herself while pregnant and to tend and care for her child once born, or ensure her baby is cared for through adoption.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

Pregnancy is an onerous responsibility on all women who experience it.

To do no intentional harm, do everything in her power to tend to herself while pregnant and to tend and care for her child once born, or ensure her baby is cared for through adoption.

I agree that pregnancy is an onerous responsibility, but only for those who choose to take it on. Becoming pregnant is not always a choice, as seen by the many crisis pregnancies experienced every year as well as the countless women who cannot get pregnant no matter how hard they try. There are external factors that need to be taken into consideration when choosing to continue with a pregnancy. Luckily for the vast majority of people these issues do not exist and they can continue with a healthy pregnancy, birth and a child to love for the rest of their lives and nobody wishes for anything less, but there are other situations.

There are women who become pregnant through rape, incest, poor judgement or faulty contraception, women who find through their pregnancy that the baby has a heartbreaking illness or deformity and that it's quality of life would be immense and lifelong suffering if it even survived the pregnancy itself. These are the situations that nobody wants but reality gives us, and while some people may be strong enough to continue with their pregnancy despite all of this, there are those that simply cannot.

It is for these people that abortions need to be available. By removing access to this service you are telling women that they have to suffer for reasons beyond their control. In every other situation in life we always try to offer a solution to another's pain, but when it comes to pregnancy we just tell women to bear down and suffer in silence.

Are there people who abuse access to abortion? Yes, of course. My partner is a midwife in London and once had a client that had received over 30 abortions, even the senior midwives were shocked and had never heard of such abuse of the system and I can assure you that I felt as much disgust for this woman as you probably do right now. But abuse of the system is not reflective of the system itself. We do not remove access to police emergency services because some people abuse it, nor should we take away medical services for that reason.

I fully understand how much abortion goes against your morals and your world view, and by no means am I trying to belittle your views in any way (if I appear to have done so in the past, I am truly sorry). The sad fact is that there are situations where a termination is the only suitable option. You agree with this when it comes to the life of the mother being threatened, but there are other situations where this is also valid. Nobody is asking you to be happy about it as none of us are happy about it either, an abortion is a sad thing but it is also a necessary thing.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

I agree that pregnancy is an onerous responsibility, but only for those who choose to take it on. Becoming pregnant is not always a choice, as seen by the many crisis pregnancies experienced every year as well as the countless women who cannot get pregnant no matter how hard they try. There are external factors that need to be taken into consideration when choosing to continue with a pregnancy. Luckily for the vast majority of people these issues do not exist and they can continue with a healthy pregnancy, birth and a child to love for the rest of their lives and nobody wishes for anything less, but there are other situations.

There are women who become pregnant through rape, incest, poor judgement or faulty contraception, women who find through their pregnancy that the baby has a heartbreaking illness or deformity and that it's quality of life would be immense and lifelong suffering if it even survived the pregnancy itself. These are the situations that nobody wants but reality gives us, and while some people may be strong enough to continue with their pregnancy despite all of this, there are those that simply cannot.

It is for these people that abortions need to be available. By removing access to this service you are telling women that they have to suffer for reasons beyond their control. In every other situation in life we always try to offer a solution to another's pain, but when it comes to pregnancy we just tell women to bear down and suffer in silence.

Are there people who abuse access to abortion? Yes, of course. My partner is a midwife in London and once had a client that had received over 30 abortions, even the senior midwives were shocked and had never heard of such abuse of the system and I can assure you that I felt as much disgust for this woman as you probably do right now. But abuse of the system is not reflective of the system itself. We do not remove access to police emergency services because some people abuse it, nor should we take away medical services for that reason.

I fully understand how much abortion goes against your morals and your world view, and by no means am I trying to belittle your views in any way (if I appear to have done so in the past, I am truly sorry). The sad fact is that there are situations where a termination is the only suitable option. You agree with this when it comes to the life of the mother being threatened, but there are other situations where this is also valid. Nobody is asking you to be happy about it as none of us are happy about it either, an abortion is a sad thing but it is also a necessary thing.

Very noble words.

One question.

Would you use the same justification for killing a one day old baby?

If a mother couldn't cope with looking at the child of her rapist? Would your compassion extend to allowing a pillow be placed over the head of the one day old girl or boy?

Would you call it a necessary thing?

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

Very noble words.

One question.

Would you use the same justification for killing a one day old baby?

If a mother couldn't cope with looking at the child of her rapist? Would your compassion extend to allowing a pillow be placed over the head of the one day old girl or boy?

Would you call it a necessary thing?

From the poster who said

Black Menorca wrote: »

The "but, but, but, what if" questions get tiring very quickly as all they are is an attempt to deflect from the core subject.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

Very noble words.

One question.

Would you use the same justification for killing a one day old baby?

If a mother couldn't cope with looking at the child of her rapist? Would your compassion extend to allowing a pillow be placed over the head of the one day old girl or boy?

Would you call it a necessary thing?

*sigh*

To which I can only respond with an equally ridiculous question, would you put a 10 week old foetus up for adoption?

gctest50

Black Menorca wrote: »

Very noble words.

One question.

Would you use the same justification for killing a one day old baby?

If a mother couldn't cope with looking at the child of her rapist? Would your compassion extend to allowing a pillow be placed over the head of the one day old girl or boy?

Would you call it a necessary thing?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/12/twitter-finally-unlimited-direct-messages-dm

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

From the poster who said

Heck, I may as well join in the fun.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

*sigh*

To which I can only respond with an equally ridiculous question, would you put a 10 week old foetus up for adoption?

Is that your considered response?

Case closed folks.

Black Menorca

gctest50 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/12/twitter-finally-unlimited-direct-messages-dm

That one has gone way over my head.

The Randy Riverbeast

Black Menorca wrote: »

Very noble words.

One question.

Would you use the same justification for killing a one day old baby?

If a mother couldn't cope with looking at the child of her rapist? Would your compassion extend to allowing a pillow be placed over the head of the one day old girl or boy?

Would you call it a necessary thing?

Or can have an adoption.

Remember, theres a difference between and unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child. I'm not sure why there is such difficulty in understanding the 2.

Black Menorca

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Or can have an adoption.

Remember, theres a difference between and unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child. I'm not sure why there is such difficulty in understanding the 2.

But what if the mother was in a famine infested, war torn country where there was no adoption agencies.

Is the pillow a justified option then?

This 'but, but, but' tactic is getting addictive.

The Randy Riverbeast

Black Menorca wrote: »

But what if the mother was in a famine infested, war torn country where there was no adoption agencies.

Is the pillow a justified option then?

This 'but, but, but' tactic is getting addictive.

Depends on the intent doesnt it?

The Randy Riverbeast

I must say, getting enjoyment from the idea of women who have to decide if their child is better off dead in these places is quite low. Even for you.

Black Menorca

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I must say, getting enjoyment from the idea of women who have to decide if their child is better off dead in these places is quite low. Even for you.

Exposing the folly of abortion apologist justifications for the massacre of innocence, is what I do.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

But what if the mother was in a famine infested, war torn country where there was no adoption agencies.

Is the pillow a justified option then?

This 'but, but, but' tactic is getting addictive.

MOD NOTE

Nobody has stated they support people being apply to commit infanticide.

So please stop with this silliness and keep to the topic.

Thanks for yor attention.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Would you use the same justification for killing a one day old baby?

If a mother couldn't cope with looking at the child of her rapist? Would your compassion extend to allowing a pillow be placed over the head of the one day old girl or boy?

Would you call it a necessary thing?

talk about moving goalposts, we've gone from talking about abortion to infanticide (yes, there is a difference as you are both fully aware and outwardly obtuse about) such a child would be put up for adoption - I may have mentioned it here or in the other thread that I had a friend carry a rapists baby to term. It was adopted, with her option of how open/closed that was. Her postpartum would have been much simpler if she heeded advice from her counselor to avoid seeing the baby. Even named her, that's what's on her birth cert, even though the surrogate parents get to pick their own name. She chose a semi closed adoption - she can request pictures/contact but the final say is with the adopting parents. She also tried unsuccessfully to hide from her family and friends during her pregnancy, and experience social backlash in her private and work life, with people at work constantly trying to nose into her business. "Whose the father? Etc" when you're a rape victim is not the conversation you want with colleagues or customers 8 times a day. Her father found out and tossed her out. Her ultra conservative grandparents found out and revoked a large trust fund she had available for college. She's the only person I know of who has had any psychological trauma as a result of an unwanted pregnancy and she is the only one of those that brought an adoption to term. In case anyone was wondering, it was a private adoption to a well to do couple. She went on an ill advised self destructive binge. Within a year she had gotten pregnant from a ****buddy, but the pregnancy was prematurely terminated due to the amount of cocaine and other intoxicants in her system.

Since you asked.

Do you yourself have any personal exposure to unwanted pregnancies?

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Nobody has stated they support people being apply to commit infanticide.

So please stop with this silliness and keep to the topic.

Thanks for yor attention.

I ask the question. Note the question marks.

Happy to clarify.

Black Menorca

Overheal wrote: »

talk about moving goalposts, we've gone from talking about abortion to infanticide (yes, there is a difference as you are both fully aware and outwardly obtuse about) such a child would be put up for adoption - I may have mentioned it here or in the other thread that I had a friend carry a rapists baby to term. It was adopted, with her option of how open/closed that was. Her postpartum would have been much simpler if she heeded advice from her counselor to avoid seeing the baby. Even named her, that's what's on her birth cert, even though the surrogate parents get to pick their own name. She chose a semi closed adoption - she can request pictures/contact but the final say is with the adopting parents. She also tried unsuccessfully to hide from her family and friends during her pregnancy, and experience social backlash in her private and work life, with people at work constantly trying to nose into her business. "Whose the father? Etc" when you're a rape victim is not the conversation you want with colleagues or customers 8 times a day. Her father found out and tossed her out. Her ultra conservative grandparents found out and revoked a large trust fund she had available for college. She's the only person I know of who has had any psychological trauma as a result of an unwanted pregnancy and she is the only one of those that brought an adoption to term. In case anyone was wondering, it was a private adoption to a well to do couple. She went on an ill advised self destructive binge. Within a year she had gotten pregnant from a ****buddy, but the pregnancy was prematurely terminated due to the amount of cocaine and other intoxicants in her system.

Since you asked.

Do you yourself have any personal exposure to unwanted pregnancies?

Compared to some here, I'm amateur hour when it comes to goalpost moving.

Child killing either inside or outside of the womb is equally horrific in my view.

Inconvenient pregnancies are unfortunate, but intentionally killing the baby is never, I say never, justified.

Overheal

So why bother dragging up infanticide if for you death of either kind is one in the same? Just to enflame an argument for your own amusement?

I infer from your evasion of the question at the end of my post that you have no experience in this subject personally, which affirms why you have such a black and white bias.