The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Nobody mentioned segregation because the women are nasty. What a childish comeback. I just think it's odd that one wing might be dedicated to bringing babies into the world and the other would be dedicated to ending their lives. For me, oddness does come into it.

So the only reason you don't think it should happen is because it's odd? Okay then. Personally I think any medical procedures should be done in locations chosen because they are clinically appropriate, not because of delicate sensibilities. Whatever about early abortion, in advanced pregnancy the only logical place to carry out an abortion is a maternity hospital in cases where a woman has to go through induction and labour. Where else would we do them?

OldNotWIse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are they? the main mantra from the pro-choice lobby is about choice.

I must have been unfortunate in the exposure to mantras that I have experienced because rape and FFA is pretty much all I have heard from the pro choice side.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Quote: eviltwin

Why shouldn't it be free? All other maternity care is free, health care in general isn't costed on the basis of bad choices which is what you are getting at.......

Unless an abortion is medically necessary, then killing babies while they are developing in the womb has nothing to do with "health" and so maybe best not to refer to it as health care... if accuracy is at all important

Abortion is a legal medical practice

(in non-backward countries before anyone goes FullRetard)

Legal medical practices be healthcare

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

So the only reason you don't think it should happen is because it's odd? Okay then. Personally I think any medical procedures should be done in locations chosen because they are clinically appropriate, not because of delicate sensibilities. Whatever about early abortion, in advanced pregnancy the only logical place to carry out an abortion is a maternity hospital in cases where a woman has to go through induction and labour. Where else would we do them?

I am quite happy with my opinion on the matter.

OldNotWIse

gctest50 wrote: »

Abortion is a legal medical practice

(in non-backward countries before anyone goes FullRetard)

Legal medical practices be healthcare

I love how nobody needs to resort to childish name calling when they meet those with a different value system.

OldNotWIse

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

er......what???

Consonata

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I love how nobody needs to resort to childish name calling when they meet those with a different value system.

Is this what you do when your argument doesn't really hold much water?

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I am quite happy with my opinion on the matter.

And you are entitled to. It doesn't mean it's not the right place to do those procedures. They happen in maternity hospitals in countries where abortion is legal. Its where the expertise is. Nothing odd about it.

OldNotWIse

Consonata wrote: »

Because might implies that the probability is low. We're talking 1 in 5 will live at all, and those who live will likely have major on going issues that they will have to deal with.

And "will" implies that it is a certainty. If parents to a baby born at 23 weeks want to care for and nurture their child and love it "despite" it's disabilities - who are you to determine that that childs life is not worthy of love?

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

And you are entitled to. It doesn't mean it's not the right place to do those procedures. They happen in maternity hospitals in countries where abortion is legal. Its where the expertise is. Nothing odd about it.

I agree. In a similar vein, just because you think it is right doesn't mean it is either.

They also happen in abortion clinics which in my opinion is the best place for them.

OldNotWIse

Consonata wrote: »

Is this what you do when your argument doesn't really hold much water?

No. As you can see, I have not resorted to name calling.

gctest50

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I love how nobody needs to resort to childish name calling when they meet those with a different value system.

Name calling ? no no, some may be in danger of going full retard as they are playing along.

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

They also happen in abortion clinics which in my opinion is the best place for them.

In all cases? Why?

Why wouldn't a woman having a late abortion be better off in the maternity hospital with her consultant and the best facilities?,

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

In all cases? Why?

Why wouldn't a woman having a late abortion be better off in the maternity hospital with her consultant and the best facilities?,

Why would a maternity hospital have better facilities than a dedicated clinic?

gctest50

OldNotWIse wrote: »

....


They also happen in abortion clinics which in my opinion is the best place for them.

No, the best place to perform terminations is in a maternity hospital that is attached to an "ordinary" hospital

Same reason best place for a maternity hospital is attached to an "ordinary" hospital

OldNotWIse

gctest50 wrote: »

No, the best place to perform terminations is in a maternity hospital that is attached to an "ordinary" hospital

Same reason best place for a maternity hospital is attached to an "ordinary" hospital

why?

gctest50

OldNotWIse wrote: »

why?

Parking spaces

Murrisk

AnGaelach wrote: »

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

By paying into general taxation, you probably already pay for things you don't agree with.

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why would a maternity hospital have better facilities than a dedicated clinic?

They have experienced staff, a vast network of support staff, operating rooms, medical stores. They can generally cover any eventuality. A clinic is just a clinic.

Why should a woman who has already received care from a maternity hospital be farmed out to a clinic when the hospital can meet her needs?

OldNotWIse

gctest50 wrote: »

Parking spaces

Drive through option?

AnGaelach

Murrisk wrote: »

By paying into general taxation, you probably already pay for things you don't agree with.

None of which include killing something, though. I can dislike how our foreign aid budget is used or I can dislike how SPVs are used by large companies to avoid tax in Ireland - but neither of those things necessitate the killing of something. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

Outlaw Pete

volchitsa wrote: »

..the claim that abortion is much like killing a person is false.

Whether that's a good thing or not is pretty much irrelevant - the point is that there's a massive inconsistency at the center of the prolife view that blows a hole in their own claim to believe what they say they believe. Since nobody (including you apparently) is arguing that we should imprison a woman for having an abortion, that shows that it's not nearly as good a comparison as the usual pro life argument would claim.

Basically they don't believe their own argument.

I'm surprised you would make the above arguments in reply to my posts as you know that I used the Sarah Catt case on many threads as an example of the hypocrisy of the prochoice, given that almost none of them said that she should have a right to do what she did. So why not? They all believe in body autonomy, don't they, so where were they when she was being sentenced?

If your contention that abortion being "much like killing a person" is false, then why was Natalie Towers jailed the year before last:

Sobbing Shildon mother jailed for DIY poison abortion

A YOUNG mother sobbed and threw herself to the ground as she was sentenced to more than two years in prison for carrying out a DIY abortion using poison bought online.

Natalie Towers, 24, searched the internet for the poisonous drug which caused her to miscarry the fully formed baby boy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.

Towers, of Adamson Street, Shildon pleaded guilty to the offence at Newcastle Crown Court today (December 17) where, from behind the dock, she sobbed and threw herself to the ground as Mr Justice Jay sent her to custody.

Sarah Mallett, prosecuting, said Towers was living with her boyfriend Sean Clark in Bishop Auckland when she purchased the poison last year.

The court heard on November 4 she was found bleeding in the bathroom after a call was made for an ambulance during which she whispered she was having a miscarriage.

When paramedics arrived, Towers told them she was suffering from stomach pain. She was described her as ‘calm and relaxed’.

Moments later a female paramedic was said to have been ‘very shocked’ to discover a warm, ‘small but fully formed’ baby head first in the toilet – to which Towers said: “It’s dead, I know it’s dead.”

She told paramedics she did not know she was pregnant, the court heard.

Strenuous efforts were made to resuscitate the baby, named Luke Clark. He was taken to hospital, but did not survive.

Ms Mallett said the baby was likely to have been stillborn and died, according to a post-mortem, of oxygen deprivation but added: “At that gestation the baby would be expected to survive with proper treatment.”

Although Towers originally denied knowledge of her pregnancy, she later admitted taking the tablets because she thought she may be pregnant.

Her computer was seized from the flat and her browsing history revealed searches for abortion pills, how police accessed internet history and how to delete it.

The court also heard she had concealed a previous pregnancy when she gave birth prematurely.

Dan Cordey, for Towers, said: “She is remorseful and greatly regrets her actions. That remorse and regret is something that will live with her for the rest of her life.

"In her own words, she said 'When I look back I think it's awful, I hate myself, I hate it and I know it's my fault'."

Mr Cordey told Mr Justice Jay that Towers never had a pregnancy test and although she realised she must have been pregnant, she was not sure how far along.

The court heard she had suffered from depression and anxiety in the past and had a tendency to ‘act impulsively and without thinking’.

Mr Justice Jay said: “I’m satisfied the baby was already dead when he was delivered or placed in the lavatory.

“I’m satisfied you must have known you were pregnant. The case has nothing to do with the morality of terminating the lives of unborn foetuses.

“It was open to you to seek a termination on the NHS before 24 weeks gestation.

“At 24 weeks gestation the foetus has a fair chance of survival if born prematurely.

“Your child would have had a good chance. It had no chance after you administered this drug.

“The law does not accept the use of poison. The aggravating factor is that you took time to plan and prepare for it in the form of internet searches."

Mr Justice Jay added: “These cases need to be dealt with with an appropriate amount of compassion and humanity.”

After imposing the two-year and six month jail sentence for administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage he said: “The reason I can’t (suspend the sentence) is because this offence is too serious.”

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

They have experienced staff, a vast network of support staff, operating rooms, medical stores. They can generally cover any eventuality. A clinic is just a clinic.

Why should a woman who has already received care from a maternity hospital be farmed out to a clinic when the hospital can meet her needs?

As do clinics.

OldNotWIse

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm surprised you would make the above arguments in reply to my posts as you know that I used the Sarah Catt case on many threads as an example of the hypocrisy of the prochoice, given that almost none of them said that she should have a right to do what she did. So why not? They all believe in body autonomy, don't they, so where were they when she was being sentenced?

If your contention that abortion being "much like killing a person" is false, then why was Natalie Towers jailed the year before last:

That's such a sad story.

thee glitz

eviltwin wrote: »

They have experienced staff, a vast network of support staff, operating rooms, medical stores. They can generally cover any eventuality. A clinic is just a clinic.

Why should a woman who has already received care from a maternity hospital be farmed out to a clinic when the hospital can meet her needs?

Maybe the best facilities and consultants should be reserved for women actually having babies.

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

As do clinics.

But we don't have abortion clinics

We do have hospitals.

Is your argument here about what's clinically best or is it more to do with your own personal views on the subject?

eviltwin

thee glitz wrote: »

Maybe the best facilities and consultants should be reserved for women actually having babies.

What should those seeking abortion get then?

Consonata

eviltwin wrote: »

What should those seeking abortion get then?

The septic tank around the back :pac:

thee glitz

eviltwin wrote: »

What should those seeking abortion get then?

Those requiring abortions probably need, and on that basis get, the best available. Not so concerned about others.

Murrisk

AnGaelach wrote: »

None of which include killing something, though. I can dislike how our foreign aid budget is used or I can dislike how SPVs are used by large companies to avoid tax in Ireland - but neither of those things necessitate the killing of something. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

You said you dislike methadone clinics. You are paying for that.

B_Wayne

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And "will" implies that it is a certainty. If parents to a baby born at 23 weeks want to care for and nurture their child and love it "despite" it's disabilities - who are you to determine that that childs life is not worthy of love?

I'm fine with whatever the woman's choice is. You literally wish to take away that right to choose or force them to travel abroad.There's plenty of midwives that would back me up on removing that choice as being extraordinarily cruel.

njs030

thee glitz wrote: »

Maybe the best facilities and consultants should be reserved for women actually having babies.

Maybe doctors after all the study and sacrifices they made to get to their position should be allowed to apply for the job they want?

Oohh....choices again.

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Nobody mentioned segregation because the women are nasty. What a childish comeback. I just think it's odd that one wing might be dedicated to bringing babies into the world and the other would be dedicated to ending their lives. For me, oddness does come into it.

Subjectively it might be odd to you, but what is odd to an individual really is irrelevant to the over all debate on abortion. I think that is what the user means when saying something like "oddness does not come into it". There are lots of things that are odd to me, and likely you too, that people have, and SHOULD have, every right to do.

We are after all an odd species. Some people are paying money to get tattoos on, while some people are painfully getting them removed. Some people are seeking medical assistance to put weight on, while others seeking it to get some off. In one room we might have someone getting breast enlargements, while in the other breast reductions. In one wing people are getting fertility treatments to get pregnant, while in another wing people are getting vasectomies to help ensure they never do. Hell most of us would do all we can to save one of our limbs....... yet there are people in this world who actively seek to have one removed and would likely be much happier if it was, and not because they are insane, but for genuine underlying conditions and reasons.

That, other than your own subjective reaction to it, does the oddness you experience....... but others do not...... actually have to do with anything I wonder?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But the "pro-choice" lot are obsessed with bringing up hard cases such as rape and FFA at every opportunity as if these form the majority of reasons for the millions of terminations each year.

Not sure that is a generous summary of their position at all. I do not see them bringing it up that often, let alone "at every opportunity". Rather they only bring it up when confronted with very specific anti abortion arguments for which such things like rape and FFA are the exception.

In fact I, as a rather loud pro-choice advocate, think appeals to rape are a terrible argument and I never make them and have in fact explained why I would ideally like to see everyone stop making them on my "side". I think it is a poor argument, even though I know when and why it is often made.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I must have been unfortunate in the exposure to mantras that I have experienced because rape and FFA is pretty much all I have heard from the pro choice side.

People do tend to hear only what they want to hear sometimes I guess. When one is convinced that people in a certain group only do or say X, then they will be hyper-sensitive to noticing when they do X.

It is called Selection Bias and we see it all the time, such as when people think Taxi Drivers are arrogant and aggressive drivers on the road. They self-confirm this by noticing the occasional Taxi driver who is, and entirely failing to notice the 100s of incidents around them where they are not.

However your selection biases aside, the majority of arguments I hear from the pro-choice side are either about bodily autonomy and the personal rights of the mother, or about the fetus and whether there is any valid basis to consider it an entity to which we should afford rights or hold moral and ethical concern.

That you ignore, or fail to notice, such arguments certainly does not mean they are not there.

AnGaelach

Murrisk wrote: »

You said you dislike methadone clinics. You are paying for that.

What does a methadone clinic kill exactly?

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's quite a stretch of the imagination. What food stuffs that we give to poor African countries do you think are then used to kill people?

Murrisk

AnGaelach wrote: »

What does a methadone clinic kill exactly?

What are you talking about? Seriously, reading comprehension fail. You said you don't want your tax going towards funding abortion as you don't agree with it. People pointed out that you are likley already paying for things you don't agree with. Someone gave the example of methadone clinics. You said you don't agree with those. I then pointed out that that is an example of you contributing towards something you don't agree with. I... didn't say a methadone clinic kills anyone. Why do you think I did?

Lirange

thee glitz wrote: »

Those requiring abortions probably need, and on that basis get, the best available. Not so concerned about others.

Well at least you're honest.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I must have been unfortunate in the exposure to mantras that I have experienced because rape and FFA is pretty much all I have heard from the pro choice side.

People hear what they want to hear.

ohnonotgmail

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And "will" implies that it is a certainty. If parents to a baby born at 23 weeks want to care for and nurture their child and love it "despite" it's disabilities - who are you to determine that that childs life is not worthy of love?

you do realise that nobody is suggesting that abortions become mandatory?

ohnonotgmail

thee glitz wrote: »

Those requiring abortions probably need, and on that basis get, the best available. Not so concerned about others.

christian compassion at its finest.

AnGaelach

Murrisk wrote: »

What are you talking about? Seriously, reading comprehension fail. You said you don't want your tax going towards funding abortion as you don't agree with it. People pointed out that you are likley already paying for things you don't agree with. Someone gave the example of methadone clinics. You said you don't agree with those. I then pointed out that that is an example of you contributing towards something you don't agree with. I... didn't say a methadone clinic kills anyone. Why do you think I did?

And the grounds of my opposition to both scenarios are different. I oppose methadone clinics because they're still highly addictive substances and the efficiency of using them to wean people off heroin is questionable. I oppose abortion because it involves the killing of what I believe to be a human life.

Simply seeing opposition to something and thinking it's the same grounds for both highlights a complete lack of nuance.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apparently you don't understand how our foreign aid budget works... We expressly pursue a policy of avoiding giving cash to dictatorships. We instead give money to charities/NGOs who then, for example, buy food and deliver food-stuffs to the people. The Government is highly unlikely to be able to use a box full of high calorie food-paste to kill a dissident.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah the "educate yourself" comment. The eternal cry of the quacks and quangos.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Edgecate yo'self"

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't want the costs to be socialised. My taxes aren't paying for it now because it's illegal here...

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

christian compassion at its finest.

Why do people act as if Jesus was a nice guy who never did anything? Jesus once attacked a load of money lenders with a whip.

Attacking anything you find "not nice" as "unchristian" is kinda ridiculous.

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why do people act as if Jesus was a nice guy who never did anything? Jesus once attacked a load of money lenders with a whip.

Attacking anything you find "not nice" as "unchristian" is kinda ridiculous.

is compassion not a christian value?

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is compassion not a christian value?

Was Jesus compassionate about the money lenders who had families to feed and bills to pay?

.......

This post has been deleted.