The new, vicious fight

NachoBusiness

Serenity High Typographer wrote: »

Relatively low number. 15,000 out of 100k+ is relatively low.

Well "rare" was the word used.

If a dozen flights out of every hundred that left Dublin Airport were to crash into the Irish sea, I doubt we'd be referring to that as a rare happening.

Hell, if it happened to 1 in 100 we wouldn't be saying it was rare, let alone 8 or 9 of 'em.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Well "rare" was the word used.

If a dozen flights out of every hundred that left Dublin Airport were to crash into the Irish sea, I doubt we'd be referring to that as a rare happening.

Hell, if it happened to 1 in 100 we wouldn't be saying it was rare.

The way I'd be thinking of it is think of all the possible outcomes if a woman becomes pregnant in the UK. Think of the 15,000 later term abortions. That outcome is rare.

Planes crashing, there's pretty only two outcomes: it crashes or it arrives safely, so in that scenario, yes, a 15% strike out rate is high. But because of the limited range of outcomes it's an overly reductive analogy for the scenario you're talking about.


If somebody had a disease with a 15% chance of survival, how would you class that? If someone scored 15/100 on a test would you think they did pretty well?

bodice ripper

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Because killing a defenceless baby is a disgusting and evil act.

Yes, yes, but we don't all agree that we are talking about a baby. Try and keep up.

zeffabelli

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Well, wouldn't agree that all abortions are but certainly yes, second trimester abortions (when the life / health of the baby and mother are not threatened in any significant way) are pretty despicable.

Especially so I feel, in western countries that have social welfare systems in place to help parents that may struggle financially.

I have sympathies for the pro life argument but my problem with those who support it at a legislative level is I don't really see these same people sticking their hands in to help with the hands on and financial care of these children. Or supports for the mother.

Anthropologically and psychologically, for an infant to survive and thrive, the mother has to fall in love with the baby and the baby has to fall in love with the mother, no legislation can make that happen.

NachoBusiness

Serenity High Typographer wrote: »

The way I'd be thinking of it is think of all the possible outcomes if a woman becomes pregnant in the UK. Think of the 15,000 later term abortions. That outcome is rare.

Like I suggested, even if only 1% of all abortions were carried out during second trimester, it would not (and should not) be considered "rare".

Planes crashing, there's pretty only two outcomes: it crashes or it arrives safely, so in that scenario, yes, a 15% strike out rate is high. But because of the limited range of outcomes it's an overly reductive analogy for the scenario you're talking about.

We are talking about abortions here and so the very nature of the discussion is reductive. The only reason you want to talk about that 15,000 second trimester abortions in the context of all UK births, is so that that number will appear smaller in comparison. Otherwise known as 'cooking the books'. Would be like Toyota being condemned because 15,000 of the cars they sold from a batch of 100,000 had dodgy breaks and they say: "Well, considering the amount of cars sold in the UK, 15,000 is a relatively small amount". Wouldn't make too much sense now would it, as it would irrelevant how many other cars were sold in the UK without issues, just as it is irrelevant to this discussion how many other women give birth in the UK and choose not to abort. Has zero relevance.

In any case, even if pretend it has some relevance: it would make no difference if a billion women gave birth in the UK per year, as 15,000 second trimester non therapeutic abortions is a disgusting number of babies to just decide to take out of existence. 1500 is. 150 is. 15 is. etc etc. No woman should be able to walk into an abortion clinic at between three and six months pregnant and just decide to end the life of the baby growing inside them. It's morally repugnant and we in this country will never allow it

NachoBusiness

zeffabelli wrote: »

I have sympathies for the pro life argument but my problem with those who support it at a legislative level is I don't really see these same people sticking their hands in to help with the hands on and financial care of these children. Or supports for the mother.

This is such a nonsensical argument for many reasons but the main one being: pro life groups clearly do a hell of a lot of work for children. Many of them would also work for children's charities. A lot of the children's charities / hospitals were started by groups associated with being against abortion and many still run them in fact. Of course we have a tarnished history in that area but in the main, I think it is a foolish suggestion to say that these people do not want anything to do with the children when they are born, nor the mothers either. I would suggest SVP and groups like that are only too willing to help when mother's find themselves in hard times.

Now that's just the religious aspect of those that are pro life. I am not and I know many many other people who are against one aspect or another of abortion and I know not one of them that does not care what happens children after they are born, or with the health of mothers after they give birth. Known many men who would be against second trimester abortions for example, that would also be supportive of men being chased down for reneging on child support. So again, your suggestion that those are have pro life opinions don't seem to want anything to do with children and mothers after they give birth, is prosperous.

My guess is that you will now start talking about Savita Halappanavar and other similar cases as proof of this but like I said before, this is typical of the pro choice movement, to cue genuine rare cases of mistreatment of pregnant women to try and justify the scandalously high numbers of non therapeutic second trimester abortions.

Anthropologically and psychologically, for an infant to survive and thrive, the mother has to fall in love with the baby and the baby has to fall in love with the mother, no legislation can make that happen.

Millions of children feel quite loved by their adoptive parents. No legislation required.

zeffabelli

NachoBusiness wrote: »

This is such a nonsensical argument for many reasons but the main one being: pro life groups clearly do a hell of a lot of work for children. Many of them would also work for children's charities. A lot of the children's charities / hospitals were started by groups associated with being against abortion and many still run them in fact. Of course we have a tarnished history in that area but in the main, I think it is a foolish suggestion to say that these people do not want anything to do with the children when they are born, nor the mothers either. I would suggest SVP and groups like that are only too willing to help when mother's find themselves in hard times.

Now that's just the religious aspect of those that are pro life. I am not and I know many many other people who are against one aspect or another of abortion and I know not one of them that does not care what happens children after they are born, or with the health of mothers after they give birth. Known many men who would be against second trimester abortions for example, that would also be supportive of men being chased down for reneging on child support. So again, your suggestion that those are have pro life opinions don't seem to want anything to do with children and mothers after they give birth, is prosperous.

My guess is that you will now start talking about Savita Halappanavar and other similar cases as proof of this but like I said before, this is typical of the pro choice movement, to cue genuine rare cases of mistreatment of pregnant women to try and justify the scandalously high numbers of non therapeutic second trimester abortions.



Millions of children feel quite loved by their adoptive parents. No legislation required.

Really. I know plenty of single mothers who have struggled.

How many pro lifers volunteer to babysit or pay for school fees? As far as I have seen, ZERO.

And many adoptees do not feel loved by their adoptive parents, so what is your point?

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Like I suggested, even if only 1% of all abortions were carried out during second trimester, it would not (and should not) be considered "rare".

Wouldn't make too much sense now would it, as it would irrelevant how many other cars were sold in the UK without issues, just as it is irrelevant to this discussion how many other women give birth in the UK and choose not to abort. Has zero relevance.

You're ignoring the context of pregnancy as something that traditionally killed many women. It's a dangerous business, and the biggest single reason it is generally no longer dangerous on the west is because of medical care including termination of pregnancy where necessary.

If car manufacturing included a unavoidable number of necessary car crashes having to be deliberately brought about by the manufacturer for safety reasons, your comparison might have some pertinence. But it doesn't.

So yes, 15 000 is a tiny number compared to the total number of births, and to the number of early abortions, and to the number of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages that occur every year. Tiny. And almost always for medical reasons, as has been pointed out to you several times now, so it's really a mystery what exactly you think you're objecting to, given that you say you aren't against terminations for medical reasons.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Millions of children feel quite loved by their adoptive parents. No legislation required.

Isn't the point that no legislation is "required" because there is none that could make any parents, adoptive or natural, want their children?

NachoBusiness

zeffabelli wrote: »

Really. I know plenty of single mothers who have struggled.

Eh, what?? Where did I say they that they don't.

How many pro lifers volunteer to babysit or pay for school fees? As far as I have seen, ZERO.

So someone that speaks out against abortion now must have a history of babysitting?? LMAO :P

And many adoptees do not feel loved by their adoptive parents, so what is your point?

That millions do!! The fact that some adoptees don't, in no way shape or form negates that.

zeffabelli

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Eh, what?? Where did I say they that they don't.



So someone that speaks out against abortion now must have a history of babysitting?? LMAO :P



That millions do!! The fact that some adoptees don't, in no way shape or form negates that.

No but if you are going to start moralising to women to have kids they cant support then put your money where your mouth is.

Plenty of women who can't even afford this terms back to school fees.

Why don't you put up a sign in your local supermarket volunteering yourself to help out with the babies since you are so concerned for their welfare.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

You're ignoring the context of pregnancy as something that traditionally killed many women. It's a dangerous business, and the biggest single reason it is generally no longer dangerous on the west is because of medical care including termination of pregnancy where necessary.

For the last time: I am not against therapeutic abortions but yet you keep using them as a battering ram. I am not surprised though, as you have little else to say in the way of retort.

If car manufacturing included a unavoidable number of necessary car crashes having to be deliberately brought about by the manufacturer for safety reasons, your comparison might have some pertinence. But it doesn't.

This is laughable: AGAIN, I have no problem with necessary abortions but yet again you use try and use them in an attempt to retort the points that I am making. It makes zero sense but yet you all thank each others posts as if it does. Gas. Hint: the 15,000 hs NOTHING to do with abortions that are carried out for therapeutic reasons.

So yes, 15 000 is a tiny number compared to the total number of births, and to the number of early abortions, and to the number of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages that occur every year. Tiny. And almost always for medical reasons, as has been pointed out to you several times now, so it's really a mystery what exactly you think you're objecting to, given that you say you aren't against terminations for medical reasons.

The total number of births is irrelevant when it comes to a debate on non therapeutic abortions and particularly when that person would vote for them. It wouldn't matter if there were a billion, each day, I am making the argument that second trimester abortions carried out for reasons other than medical ones are barbaric and so dragging in the numbers of births in an effort to offset that number is nonsensical. You either have an argument to excuse the the abortions I am speaking out against or you don't but please stop with the smoke and mirrors.

NachoBusiness

zeffabelli wrote: »

No but if you are going to start moralising to women to have kids they cant support then put your money where your mouth is.

I do put my money where my mouth is. I pay tax. We have a welfare system for women (and men) that need financial help raising children.

Plenty of women who can't even afford this terms back to school fees.

Why don't you put up a sign in your local supermarket volunteering yourself to help out with the babies since you are so concerned for their welfare.

Are you serious? Do you extend this logic to all areas of the law? Should I not for example speak out against assaults on the elderly if I haven't also worked in an old people's home at some stage?

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Hint: the 15,000 hs NOTHING to do with abortions that are carried out for therapeutic reasons

You were already asked for a source for this assertion and afaict, haven't given one.

Obviously if by "therapeutic reasons" you discount all terminations but those where the mother's life is already at risk, you will be correct, but that is not considered acceptable medical practice in most western countries (and is the reason why Ireland currently stand accused of human rights abuses against women by Amnesty International).

The statistics in any countries I'm aware of, even ones with freely available abortion, show that before the middle of the second trimester the number of non therapeutic abortions is tiny. So of that 15 000 only a very very few, possibly none, are for reasons to do with loads of money or support or any other "social" reason.

Which is why I keep coming back to the claim that these second and third trimester terminations are mainly done for medical reasons - because they are.