Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

SusieBlue

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I understand you correctly, they should have the choice of both

Weren't you only on about the importance of the point of sentience a few posts ago? Why is sentience no longer relevant?

Kidchameleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The most practical way would be if men took equal responsibility for also using contraception. There are trials on-going in the area of hormonal/non-hormonal contraceptive pills for men and it will be interesting to see how many men will be willing to take them.
Although having said that - I have a granddaughter because two forms of contraception failed. It happens.

The most responsible way in my opinion is to always use two methods. Of course there will always be outliers.

I think we will see a male "pill" soon enough.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I understand you correctly, they should have the choice of both

I disagree actually.

Once a fetus is sentient (i.e functioning brain) and viable than every effort should be made to secure a successful birth.

I honestly don't see anyone here - with the exception of yourself - arguing for the termination of a sentient, viable fetus.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

I am replying to your point:The facts I've quoted above suggest that abortion can be an option for women when an alternative exists.

I genuinely don't see how they do suggest that.

A woman chose not to use contraception because, presumably, at that point she wanted to get pregnant for some reason. Then, once pregnant, for some other reason, she decided not to continue the pregnancy. At that stage, abortion was the only way to do that.


ETA: are you saying that these women chose not to use contraception with the intention of having a termination if they got pregnant?

What evidence is there of that? Because (and particularly in Ireland) that could not possibly have been the solution of facility could it? TBF I think those sorts of claims, which are regularly made by prolifers, are not reliable. As I suggested, all sorts of other explanations are at least as likely.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed. Using an additional method would lower that 3%.

Sterilisation and oral contraception?? Really? Why only for sex though? What about telling drivers and passengers they should systematically wear both seatbelts and crash helmets? Why don't we make that obligatory? It would reduce the death and injury rate for sure. Don't born people's lives matter too?

SusieBlue

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree actually.

Once a fetus is sentient (i.e functioning brain) and viable than every effort should be made to secure a successful birth.

I honestly don't see anyone here - with the exception of yourself - arguing for the termination of a sentient, viable fetus.

I suspect he will use that very detail as "proof" that he is more pro-choice than the rest of us, even though that isn't remotely what being pro-choice is about.

Calina

robindch wrote: »

And this is exactly what my point is.

One poster said that people "never" do something.

I replied, inter alia, that personal knowledge indicates that some people do this thing.

Hence, that the original claim appears not to be accurate.

The point I am making is that many women may be trying not to get pregnant but have issues around using methods other than abortion after pregnancy is established. Your post did not account for the complexity of reasons and implied women were wilfully lazy about avoiding pregnancy. My point is that it is absolutely not that simple and there are issues both social and medical which limit their options.

But this really only matters if you consider women should be compelled to go through the pregnancies they failed to avoid just because you have an opinion on what you think are their choices but which may not be free choices at all.

Kidchameleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

Weren't you only on about the importance of the point of sentience a few posts ago? Why is sentience no longer relevant?

Of course it is relevant but it does not supersede the woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body. Abortion is an undesirable but necessary decision that we as a civilization need to make sometimes.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree actually.

Once a fetus is sentient (i.e functioning brain) and viable than every effort should be made to secure a successful birth.

I honestly don't see anyone here - with the exception of yourself - arguing for the termination of a sentient, viable fetus.

What about in a case of a rape. Due to trauma, the victim has taken until the 24th week to decide she wants an abortion. Would you deny her it bearing in mind that the fetus could be viable and sentient?

volchitsa wrote: »

Sterilisation and oral contraception?? Really? Why only for sex though? What about telling drivers and passengers they should systematically wear both seatbelts and crash helmets? Why don't we make that obligatory? It would reduce the death and injury rate for sure. Don't born people's lives matter too?

Well I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this post, with all due respect it is a little confusing. But I will say that asking drivers to wear helmets in cars is a bit of a nanny state move and I have never said that using two forms of contraception should be obligatory, it is just the smart thing to do if you are not ready to be a parent.


As a side note, I and I imagine many others would not be able to drive safely with a helmet on so your scenario would probably lead to more road accidents.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I suspect he will use that very detail as "proof" that he is more pro-choice than the rest of us, even though that isn't remotely what being pro-choice is about.

Susie, could you please define your term when you say "pro-choice", just so we can try to figure out if we are getting our wires crossed.

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's a related question: should there be any restrictions on women's sterilization? In my view, absolutely not ever no reason for it.

It's certainly a way to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to having tubes tied etc? My opinion is that no, there should be no restrictions on it, again it comes down to woman's body, woman's choice for me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know that there is any restrictions but I could be wrong. A male associate of mine got "the snip" recently and the doctor was hesitant because of his young age but it was more a case of "are you sure, like really sure? Yes? OK then - SNIP!"

Kidchameleon

From:


https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/after-an-abortion/pregnancy-remains.html

5. Pregnancy remains

If you have an abortion between 9 to 12 weeks, hospital staff should explain the options available for disposal of the pregnancy remains.

This will be done in a sensitive manner. They will help you make a decision that is right for you.

If you do not wish to make a decision about your pregnancy remains, the hospital can make a decision for you and dispose of the remains.

If you have an abortion before 9 weeks of pregnancy, you can decide how to dispose of the remains. They can be flushed down the toilet or wrapped in tissue and disposed of as you wish.

Whats peoples opinions on this sentence? Is it insensitive language on the part of the HSE? Strange choice of words given that some people can be quite sensitive.


I know technically speaking at the 9 week stage it is only a clump of cells but to some people I would imagine it is more than that in their eyes.

*Edit* I forgot to say that it would not bother me personally, it is only words.

SusieBlue

Kidchameleon wrote: »

From:


https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/after-an-abortion/pregnancy-remains.html



Whats peoples opinions on this sentence? Is it insensitive language on the part of the HSE? Strange choice of words given that some people can be quite sensitive.


I know technically speaking at the 9 week stage it is only a clump of cells but to some people I would imagine it is more than that in their eyes.

*Edit* I forgot to say that it would not bother me personally, it is only words.

At that gestation, be it abortion or natural miscarriage, the result is a very heavy period with large blood clots. For women who miscarry, the contents also go down the toilet.
There is nothing to bury.
Its hypocritical to have an issue with this, but not have an issue with the fact that miscarriages end EXACTLY the same way.

Its not insensitive, its an unfortunate reality for the 1/3 women who experience miscarriage in their lifetimes, never mind those who have abortions.

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to having tubes tied etc? My opinion is that no, there should be no restrictions on it, again it comes down to woman's body, woman's choice for me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know that there is any restrictions but I could be wrong. A male associate of mine got "the snip" recently and the doctor was hesitant because of his young age but it was more a case of "are you sure, like really sure? Yes? OK then - SNIP!"

Tubal ligation is an invasive surgery compared to vasectomy which is a simple snip.

Traditionally the medical profession in Ireland wont entertain people under 35 saying they never want to have children. Its become a lot easier for men.

However, because there are alternatives for women with low failure rates, the risk of pregnancy is considered lower than the risk of invasive surgery so they would prefer if you took the pill or got the coil etc.. Its totally understandable, a woman is trying to solve a temporary problem, she WILL reach the end of her fertility at some stage so an invasive surgery is always best avoided if possible.

There is also the cost involved, its an elective procedure, many people couldnt afford it.

Just as a personal anecdote when I enquired about tubal ligation I was variously told (at different ages) that I was (a) too young, (b) they would prefer if I got the coil, (c) they would prefer my husband got a vasectomy.

But overall, if a woman has access to safe legal abortion as a backup to an unwanted pregnancy then we really dont need women to undergo invasive tubal ligations.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about in a case of a rape. Due to trauma, the victim has taken until the 24th week to decide she wants an abortion. Would you deny her it bearing in mind that the fetus could be viable and sentient?

As a rape victim I can assure you one of the greatest traumas in the aftermath is the possibility of pregnancy and it is highly unlikely any rape victim would wait to get a test done. And even more unlikely that should she be pregnant she would wait 5 1/2 months to terminate it.

Edit to add: I see you have apparently ruled out the possibility of the fetus being born.

It is the pregnancy that is aborted/terminated in order to end it. The birth of a child terminates the pregnancy.
In all your questions you avoid this as a possibility. Why is that?

The Late Late Show

This carry on in Alabama shows us more of the same hypocrisy practiced by the real world Gilead types in America. They are obsessed with 'pro life' on one hand(maid!!!) and would not mind killing 1000s of innocent people in Iran or Venezuela as part of their unneeded wars on the other. America since this time last year is a sick country with a leader who has to hide behind a comedian rather than show his real face (America's unseen real leader is a he but he prefers to rule through fools who are expendable).

nozzferrahhtoo

Charles Ingles wrote: »

We can do both. Life is precious and a gift from God

And yet we end life all the time. Without reservation. So it seems life is only precious when it suits you for it to be.

That said though.... perhaps you should FINALLY get around to presenting the first SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest your god entity even exists before you shoe horn it into the conversation as if it should be relevant to anything or anyone.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning.

Doubtful. This happens periodically in the US. Just like attempts to remove evolution or smuggle in creationism in the class room occasionally gets written into, and back out of, local state laws.

No "tide turning" at all in that. It is just he cyclical nature of local american legal politics. Been happening for years. 12 years ago South Dakota did a similar thing for example.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I find thinking about things we might face in the future to be very interesting.

As do I. A lot. But there is a time and a place.

All the science we have suggests the fetus is not sentient at that point. None of the science we have suggests it is, or even might be, or even could be.

Imagining what data we might have in the future is interesting but hardly relevant to the discussion of abortion here, now, today. And I find myself suspecting your discussion of imaginary futures is less because you find it interesting.... and more because you are painting over (entire) posts, points and discussions that were sent your way to which you have not responded.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Here's one of many video's of Ben talking about abortion, no real mention of faith just science...

Hardly science. First he takes EMOTIONAL offence to someone pregnant finding themselves discussing reproductive rights. And his issue with her saying it is based on words he then puts in her mouth that she never even remotely said.

SHE said that being pregnant put reproductive rights in her head.
HE claims she said "I want to be able to kill this thing" and that her position is that women should be able to kill it "anytime they want".

That is one of the most blatant and dishonest distortions and strawmen I have seen.... well..... ever. She did not say ANY of what he claimed she did.

He then goes on to moan about a baby that was killed illegally after the cut off. Hardly representative of abortion is it?

Have to say I do not know who this man is. Is he always this dishonest and manipulative?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I believe yes is the answer to both of these questions. What is your opinion? I see no difference between a 24 week pregnancy and a 40 week one.

Not seeing it and not wanting to see it are too VERY different things. You have been given a difference many times already. Here it is again:

In the former there is NO current reason to think it a sentient agent. In the latter there is.

That is no small difference. Thankfully I do not think anyone I have met wants abortion to be available to 40 weeks. At least not in terms of termination of the child. Termination of the pregnancy in late pregnancy, thus delivering a healthy live child, is another matter.

We had ONE poster around here who claimed over and over for years to support abortion up to term. Amazingly the moment the referendum was announced that poster almost instantly switched to the opposite extreme of no abortions should be allowed at all! I suspect he was just doing a "poe" on the pro choice position until the referendum popped up and his mask basically slipped.

Mere location is not a justification for the killing of a sentient living human being. Either a sentient human has rights or it does not. Its rights are not mediated by location. Thankfully no one needs to kill a child at 40 weeks however. We can deliver the baby and remove it from the woman as she requires. Suggesting she has, or even requires, the right to kill it is not founded on any moral arguments I can discern.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed. Using an additional method would lower that 3%.

Which sounds great, but actually small %s of large numbers is still a large number. Even if you could get the contraceptive failure rate down to 0.1% that is still 0.1% of a large number. Which itself will be a large number.

A lot of people in our world are having sex a lot of the the time. 0.1% of that large number is still going to result in a significant quantity of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

Further however, we can not assume that everyone seeking abortion is having an unplanned pregnancy. Quite often the pregnancy they are seeing to end is one that initially they had planned to have. However changes in something like their circumstances means they no longer wish to continue with that plan.

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning.
Abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rape or FFA.
I worry what our abortion rates in Ireland will be in 10 or 20 years.

Given that you agree with some cases whereby abortion should be legal here [rape and FFA] how do you compare that position with reference to the new Alabama state law "maybe this could be the start of the tide turning" which bans all abortions?

Is it that your position on abortion is a floating position, OK for some conditions in some countries and not at all for the same in other countries? Is it rather that you feel that the right of the lawmakers to decide on access to abortion, rather than the pregnant women involved [and their medical condition] is the prime for you due to how abortion is in inherent conflict with your religious beliefs? I note your use of the quote on banners at RC churches referring to life being a gift from God. Can you tease out my questions and reply please?

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.. and more because you are painting over (entire) posts, points and discussions that were sent your way to which you have not responded.

If I have failed to answer any question I'd be happy to if you let me know what I may have missed. Im pretty sure I have answered all questions put to me at this stage though

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I have failed to answer any question I'd be happy to if you let me know what I may have missed. Im pretty sure I have answered all questions put to me at this stage though

You completely ignored my long response to you where I also asked you some more questions.

Its cool though - I can see you are cherry picking what you want to respond to while maintaining an disingenuous position.

Kidchameleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a rape victim I can assure you one of the greatest traumas in the aftermath is the possibility of pregnancy and it is highly unlikely any rape victim would wait to get a test done. And even more unlikely that should she be pregnant she would wait 5 1/2 months to terminate it.

Edit to add: I see you have apparently ruled out the possibility of the fetus being born.

It is the pregnancy that is aborted/terminated in order to end it. The birth of a child terminates the pregnancy.
In all your questions you avoid this as a possibility. Why is that?

Nowhere in my post did I rule out the possibility of delivery. If the victim wanted to deliver then that would be a great solution imho.

I was asking specifically about abortion. Ill ask you again, if a rape victim decided to abort at 24 weeks would you deny their request?

I agree that it is a rare scenario but it is very possible.

Kidchameleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

Its hypocritical to have an issue with this, but not have an issue with the fact that miscarriages end EXACTLY the same way.

This may not have been directed at me but I will just point out that in the post you quoted I literally said I had no issue with it

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I have failed to answer any question I'd be happy to if you let me know what I may have missed. Im pretty sure I have answered all questions put to me at this stage though

You ignored my entire post 638, nearly all of post 650, and now the near majority of post 866. Basically.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You ignored my entire post 638, nearly all of post 650, and now the near majority of post 866. Basically.

Ok ill look over them and get back to you asap

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I was asking specifically about abortion. Ill ask you again, if a rape victim decided to abort at 24 weeks would you deny their request?

I agree that it is a rare scenario but it is very possible.

You seem to imagine that the 25% or whatever it is of 24-week babies who survive were simply born sufficiently mature to live, much like a full term baby only smaller. That's not the case. A baby that is born at 24 weeks and just put in a cot or given to its mother will die. It can't feed, can't control its body temperature, often can't breathe by itself etc etc. If the mother hasn't been given steroid injections in the days before birth its lungs won't be mature enough even with oxygen.

The babies who do survive only do so thanks to a massive amount of high tech medicine and many of the procedures can be very painful. So painful that in some cases of very premature birth of very much wanted babies, parents are nevertheless advised not to insist on resuscitation in the first place, because the results are so unsure and it is felt to be putting the baby basically through torture only to end up with it probably either dying anyway or being severely disabled for its whole life.

This was the case even with the 8th amendment by the way, because once the baby is born, the legal situation changed and it had no further "right to life". Just like the rest of us actually.

Igotadose

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem to imagine that the 25% or whatever it is of 24-week babies who survive were simply born sufficiently mature to live, much like a full term baby only smaller. That's not the case

The babies who do survive only do so thanks to a massive amount of high tech medicine and many of the procedures can be very painful. So painful that in some cases of very premature birth of very much wanted babies, parents are nevertheless advised not to insist on resuscitation in the first place, because the results are so unsure and it is felt to be putting the baby basically through torture only to end up with it probably either dying anyway or being severely disabled for its whole life.

This was the case even with the 8th amendment by the way, because once the baby is born, the legal situation changed and it had no further "right to life". Just like the rest of us actually.

And the resulting children typically have lots of life-long limitations due to such an early birth.

volchitsa

Igotadose wrote: »

And the resulting children typically have lots of life-long limitations due to such an early birth.

I often wonder what happened that poor baby that was born to that poor asylum seeker Ms Y. I read a year or so afterwards that someone who was a social worker involved with his case had said that he was blind and possibly deaf as a result of his traumatically early birth but I don't think I've seen anything since.

The whole thing was just so awful. That they preferred to traumatise her by refusing a termination at 8 or 10 weeks when she made her feelings clear, and ended up bringing an unwanted and severely disabled baby into the world to be brought up in the Irish "care" system, further traumatising her and probably the baby.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

That might have copped a Ginsburg as easily as a Scalia.

Term limits should apply to all

Of course Twitler will try and recruit 40-somethings into any vacancies which arise, these eminent citizens will be still trying to shoehorn conservative christianity into the US Constitution decades after 45's toast.

Igotadose

volchitsa wrote: »

The whole thing was just so awful. That they preferred to traumatise her by refusing a termination at 8 or 10 weeks when she made her feelings clear, and ended up bringing an unwanted and severely disabled baby into the world to be brought up in the Irish "care" system, further traumatising her and probably the baby.

It's NEVER about the fetus, though, once born. It's about forcing the birth.

AOC had a good tweet about the Alabama law (which was signed by the Governor there yesterday, so it's in effect for now):
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1128890390982123522?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ill ask you again, if a rape victim decided to abort at 24 weeks would you deny their request?

Why are anti-choicers so obsessed with late abortion?

These make up a vanishingly tiny proportion of abortions, and almost always have a compelling medical reason, but they'll pretend they're common and occur on a whim.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

....

Yes I understand all of that...

Third and last time, would you deny her the abortion?

Charles Ingles

Igotadose wrote: »

It's NEVER about the fetus, though, once born. It's about forcing the birth.

AOC had a good tweet about the Alabama law (which was signed by the Governor there yesterday, so it's in effect for now):
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1128890390982123522?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Oh my god you are quoting AOC and I get mocked for supporting Gemma o Doherty.
AOC is off the charts crazy

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why are anti-choicers so obsessed with late abortion?

Because it's emotive.

Sure, didn't #45 say recently that some places were carrying out abortions after birth?

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yes I understand all of that...

Third and last time, would you deny her the abortion?

I don't have an issue with someone else having an abortion when the foetus is not viable. So at 24 weeks, that's okay by me.


(I didn't answer before because your question wasn't directed at me and I don't actually see your scenario as something that happens IRL. So it seemed pointless. You don't seriously imagine that a rape victim would sit around for 23 weeks wondering whether they want to create a lifelong link with their rapist by having their baby, do you?)

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yes I understand all of that...

Third and last time, would you deny her the abortion?

Do you have any evidence to show that rape victims who are 24 weeks pregnant are seeking abortions?

Cabaal

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Oh my god you are quoting AOC and I get mocked for supporting Gemma o Doherty.
AOC is off the charts crazy

Amusing but false
Nobody wins at crazy bingo like Gemma does,

Gemma wins
- Anti-vax
- Lizard People
- World Governments
- Gay Unicorn Agenda.
- Flat Earth
- Believes Climate Change is fake

Gemma is in a whole other world...and apparently its flat

aloyisious

This is probably "old hat" to some/most here as something that's been done over here in the aged past. Checking up on the word abortion currently used in this debate, I came up with some US [state] laws in abortion. It seems one state [Pennysylvania] recognize a fertilized human egg as an unborn child but others don't [Alaska -the egg has to be in the womb] while others see the presence of a foetal heartbeat as a sign the feotus is an unborn child, Mississippi heartbeat law defines an unborn individual as “an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth". How can a fertilized human egg which has just come into existence have a heartbeat at 5 weeks and 23 hours+ short of 6 weeks?

Arizona law has something similarly worded but uses the term human embryo alongside “a living organism of the species homo sapiens through the first fifty-six days of its development.

The state laws there are a hodgepodge mess and really not much use outside the individual state they are enacted in as a quotable definition of what exists in law to be aborted. I should point out that I have not gone into the present situation to see if the laws I mentioned are still in legal force in the states that enacted them or if they've been overturned in law on appeal/reference on their validity under the US constitution. Ditto on the ACOG position below.

Another quote to give some explanation as to what a fertilized human egg is: According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “[c]onception is a lay term that has no scientific validity and is not generally used in the medical literature because of its variable definition and connotation.” Researchers instead use the word “fertilization” to refer to “the union of sperm and ovum.” Such distinctions makes a difference when determining the legal status of preborn human reproductive cells.

Edit: 07/05/2019. Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation. The law effectively bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the time when a fetal heartbeat is usually detected. Kentucky state house voted in a similar law in March earlier this year, using the 6 week heartbeat detection position.

Pherekydes

Cabaal wrote: »

Amusing but false
Nobody wins at crazy bingo like Gemma does,

Gemma wins
- Anti-vax
- Lizard People
- World Governments
- Gay Unicorn Agenda.
- Flat Earth
- Believes Climate Change is fake

Gemma is in a whole other world...and apparently its flat

You forgot intensive chemtrailing. :pac:

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Nowhere in my post did I rule out the possibility of delivery. If the victim wanted to deliver then that would be a great solution imho.

I was asking specifically about abortion. Ill ask you again, if a rape victim decided to abort at 24 weeks would you deny their request?

I agree that it is a rare scenario but it is very possible.

And I said delivery of a viable fetus is aborting the pregnancy.

You seem to be missing the point that the desired end result is that the woman in question is no longer pregnant. That does not necessarily mean terminating the fetus. It absolutely means terminating the pregnancy.

Apart from that it isn't my place to deny or approve. That is between the woman and her medical team. I do not know what this 'trauma' is that delayed her decision. Is it physical or mental or both? Is she in danger of committing suicide? Is continuing the pregnancy a danger to her health or life?

There are nuances in real life that render your 'but if a rape victim is so traumatised that she doesn't want an abortion until 5 1/2 months into the pregnancy' a fairly pointless 'what if...' example of an (imho unlikely) extreme case.

Igotadose

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Oh my god you are quoting AOC and I get mocked for supporting Gemma o Doherty.
AOC is off the charts crazy

AOC is one of the sanest politicians in decades. She had the nerve to say that maybe having kids isn't such a good idea: "There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?”

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-climate-change-have-kids-children-1342853

She winds up the right-wingers which is another plus in my book.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You ignored my entire post 638, nearly all of post 650, and now the near majority of post 866. Basically.

Response to post #638

You were discussing something with another poster in this post, it had nothing to do with me so I have not ignored you. I am not sure why you have highlighted that post for me.

Response to post #650

There is not really a question in that post so I have not really ignored you. The closest thing to a question that I can respond to was you pondering what discussing vegetative patients has to do with abortion. Well in my opinion, people who are in a vegetative state can be a useful analogy to explore the topic of abortion. Said comparison has been used for years leading up to the referendum by many people. I guess if you read perhaps posts 620-650 or there about, you will see the context of why the analogy was made.

Response to post #866

Firstly I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow his work, I have seen a few videos of him debating and that about it. I find his voice a little annoying actually. I posted a video showing Ben talking about abortion and he did not seem to bring his faith into it. It was in response to another poster saying his opinions on abortion are because of his Jewish faith. I agree that he was very emotional, misrepresented the actress he referred to and used loaded words in the video.

You also said in this post that there is no current evidence to say a 24 week old fetus is sentient. That is just factually incorrect. If a child is born at 24 weeks, he or she is most certainly sentient.

Lastly, I never said every abortion was the result of an unplanned pregnancy.

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to show that rape victims who are 24 weeks pregnant are seeking abortions?

No, no evidence but is certainly a possible scenario. Probably very very rare, but possible.

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No, no evidence but is certainly a possible scenario. Probably very very rare, but possible.

So its an imaginary scenario then?

Charles Ingles

Pherekydes wrote: »

You forgot intensive chemtrailing. :pac:

A friend of mine is convinced the earth is flat, won't go for a pint with him anymore he bores me to death.at first I thought he was joking but he is convinced for some reason it's flat.
Where did the flat earth thing start?

Charles Ingles

Igotadose wrote: »

AOC is one of the sanest politicians in decades. She had the nerve to say that maybe having kids isn't such a good idea: "There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?”

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-climate-change-have-kids-children-1342853

She winds up the right-wingers which is another plus in my book.

Well according to AOC the world will end in 12 year's, so it doesn't matter what conspiracy theories Gemma spouts.
AOC is bat **** crazy

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well according to AOC the world will end in 12 year's, so it doesn't matter what conspiracy theories Gemma spouts.
AOC is bat **** crazy

According to many republicans the earth is less than 10,000 years old, a man spoke to a burning bush, a virgin gave birth and a 900 year old man parted the sea.


Now thats batshyte crazy!

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

So its an imaginary scenario then?

I think whatever way I put it, people will avoid answering. It has happened on thread already.

*edit* a quick Google reveals many situations like this occur. I am compiling links now...

Charles Ingles

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

According to many republicans the earth is less than 10,000 years old, a man spoke to a burning bush, a virgin gave borth and a 900 year old man parted the sea.


Now thats batshyte crazy!

You are mixing up the old testament and the new testament.
And Our lady did give birth to out saviour Jesus Christ.
You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You are mixing up the old testament and the new testament.
And Our lady did give birth to out saviour Jesus Christ.
You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

Ah the auld effectiveness of throwing away the OT when it contradicts the new :rolleyes:

She allegedly gave birth, there is no evidence that she did.

I don't have to respect anyones faith, that's the joys of free will

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think whatever way I put it, people will avoid answering. It has happened on thread already.

*edit* a quick Google reveals many situations like this occur. I am compiling links now...

In Ireland please?

Im not really sure what point you are trying to score here?

Is it so you can say HAHA you are NOT really pro choice! if someone says a girl has to stay pregnant after a certain point?

I think its reasonable for *most* pro choice people to have a cut off point and that cut off is generally determined by the possibility of the fetus surviving outside the womb and the presence of brain activity. We dont have an "exact" date for that so it seems safe to say lets have a law that cuts off around 20 weeks or so, because we do know for sure that there is no brain activity or the ability to survive outside the womb. So there might be the odd edge case where a 20 week old fetus survives, but the probability is that they wont.

Does that mean that victims of rape who are 24 weeks pregnant may be refused an abortion? Maybe - but is that relevant? Probably not because although possible its a rare occurence and hard cases make bad laws. You dont legislate on the extreme cases - it would be silly to do so.

I feel like you are just pushing extreme hypotheticals to create a reaction as opposed to have a discussion?

Or you are trying to push an extreme position that YOU call pro choice but that is not representative of most pro choice people and therefore say "I think this extreme thing is ok and I am pro choice hence pro choice means this extreme thing".

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't have an issue with someone else having an abortion when the foetus is not viable. So at 24 weeks, that's okay by me.

At 24 weeks a fetus is viable in a small number of cases. How can we tell which ones are not viable?

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You are mixing up the old testament and the new testament.
And Our lady did give birth to out saviour Jesus Christ.
You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

Does that respect flow both ways?