Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Kidchameleon

aloyisious wrote: »

Are we asking a multiple-person question here, or is there a single person behind the three separate actions described in your post?

In the scenario I am pondering, one person would secretly put the abortion pills into the tea of an 8 months+ pregnant woman. The woman's baby is healthy up to that point and the abortion pills end up causing the death of the baby.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In the scenario I am pondering, one person would secretly put the abortion pills into the tea of an 8 months+ pregnant woman. The woman's baby is healthy up to that point and the abortion pills end up causing the death of the baby.

Again this isn't an abortion. It's a similar type of argument that some of the pro life side tried in the threads stating that once the 8th was repealed we would have mandatory abortion.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am wondering if there is any case where an abortion could be considered "the m word"

While one-line replies are considered not in order here by Boards policy and by the Mods enforcing the policy (this one-liner written by me) have you tried googling for info on such maters where it comes to criminal cases involving pregnant women, abortion and the 13th letter in the alphabet? Believe it or not, googling CIDE does provide answers.

recedite

amcalester wrote: »

It’s worth noting that he has also stated he is not a protester, so how can he claim their intentions are 100% honest. He may think it, and is entitled to think that, but he can’t know that for a fact, yet makes the claim.

I agree he can't know that for a fact, therefore what he was giving there was only his opinion.
Seriously, you can't go hounding other people every time they post an opinion, demanding that they cite evidence, and then throwing a hissy fit when they don't reply to you.

He actually did reply a few posts later and said

any time i have heard such people been spoken to via various talk radio that is the intentions they state, with the opposites who claim otherwise being unable to show otherwise.

Which of course is only anecdotal evidence, but no real evidence is required for somebody to hold an opinion.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In the scenario I am pondering, one person would secretly put the abortion pills into the tea of an 8 months+ pregnant woman. The woman's baby is healthy up to that point and the abortion pills end up causing the death of the baby.

Simple. Don't do it. It's against the law to spike someone's tea or any other drink without their consent.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In the scenario I am pondering, one person would secretly put the abortion pills into the tea of an 8 months+ pregnant woman. The woman's baby is healthy up to that point and the abortion pills end up causing the death of the baby.

Ah yes. the description of the foetus in the pregnant woman's womb. It's absolutely the prerogative of the writer to choose the preferred word to describe anything to get a particular POV across for the purpose of reasoned debate and nothing should stand in that way except for it being used to induce irritation.

As you wrote on the history of the US case whereby a partner caused an illegal abortion, the case involved a trial and conviction of said person. The question you ask above also involving the state of health of the foetus prior to the poisoning you originally mentioned would surely be better put to the authority behind that prosecution to get a pertinent answer.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

I agree he can't know that for a fact, therefore what he was giving there was only his opinion.
Seriously, you can't go hounding other people every time they post an opinion, demanding that they cite evidence, and then throwing a hissy fit when they don't reply to you.

He actually did reply a few posts later and said
Which of course is only anecdotal evidence, but no real evidence is required for somebody to hold an opinion.

He can’t know that for a fact, but he still tries to pass his opinion off as such.

And just so we’re clear, his explanation only addresses the second part of his claim, that their intentions were not as evil twin claimed. It in no way supports his claim that they are 100% honest.

aloyisious

FAO Bannside & others interested. the Safe Access panel discussion at the Macro Community Resource Centre has been cancelled. The following is from the organizers F/B page.

Due to unforeseen circumstances we are cancelling this event. Please keep an eye on our social media for a rescheduled date.

Kidchameleon

I am pro choice. I am trying to figure out why it is considered <the m word> to spike the drink of a pregnant woman causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside a woman's womb> and why is is not considered <the m word> for that same woman to have an abortion causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside the woman's womb>.


Ps. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone with this post. :rolleyes:

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am pro choice. I am trying to figure out why it is considered <the m word> to spike the drink of a pregnant woman causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside a woman's womb> and why is is not considered <the m word> for that same woman to have an abortion causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside the woman's womb>.


Ps. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone with this post. :rolleyes:

First you have set out what the abortion pills would do to an 8 month pregnancy.

The 2 pills serve different purposes, 1 stops the fetus from developing and the second causes cramping and bleeding to expel the fetus from the body.

I don’t know what will happen, but a delivery at 8 months has the same chances of survival as one at 40 weeks.

Kidchameleon

amcalester wrote: »

First you have set out what the abortion pills would do to an 8 month pregnancy.

The 2 pills serve different purposes, 1 stops the fetus from developing and the second causes cramping and bleeding to expel the fetus from the body.

I don’t know what will happen, but a delivery at 8 months has the same chances of survival as one at 40 weeks.

The pills would cause the cessation of life or whatever the politically correct way of saying it is.

Igotadose

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am pro choice. I am trying to figure out why it is considered <the m word> to spike the drink of a pregnant woman causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside a woman's womb> and why is is not considered <the m word> for that same woman to have an abortion causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside the woman's womb>.


Ps. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone with this post. :rolleyes:

Are you referring to this case: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sikander-imran-doctor-sentenced-for-spiking-girlfriends-drink-to-induce-abortion/

The fetus in question was 17 weeks old - the abortion pills are NOT what's recommended for such a late date. What the Dr. in question was found guilty of, was fetal homicide. He induced a miscarriage. No different than if he'd hit her abdomen with a hammer until the fetus was destroyed. The abortion pill was a means to an end here, no more no less.

eviltwin

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The pills would cause the cessation of life or whatever the politically correct way of saying it is.

It would have to be some amount of pills if the pregnancy is in it's 8th month

Igotadose

eviltwin wrote: »

It would have to be some amount of pills if the pregnancy is in it's 8th month[/QUOTE

I think the poster might be talking about a pregnancy that was in its 17th week, where 4 pills were used to induce miscarriage. I'm interested in the details of the case, at 8 months I would expect the baby to be delivered spontaneously given the use of ru 456.

But, like I said, using the pills to induce a miscarriage was no different than hitting the woman's abdomen with a hammer. Just a sly way of doing it.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am pro choice. I am trying to figure out why it is considered <the m word> to spike the drink of a pregnant woman causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside a woman's womb> and why is is not considered <the m word> for that same woman to have an abortion causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside the woman's womb>.


Ps. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone with this post. :rolleyes:

But you're not actually making a point about abortion because you said "at 8+ months" : an abortion at 8 months that leads to the fetus' death will be punished, including when it was done by the woman herself, as I said earlier.

OTOH if it doesn't lead to the fetus' death (because at 8 months the baby can be born alive) then it's not a murder. In either case.

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The pills would cause the cessation of life or whatever the politically correct way of saying it is.

You sure? I did some googling and couldn’t find anything that stated what the outcome of taking the pills at 36 weeks would be but I don’t think either pill is designed to kill the fetus (even though that is the outcome).

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am pro choice. I am trying to figure out why it is considered <the m word> to spike the drink of a pregnant woman causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside a woman's womb> and why is is not considered <the m word> for that same woman to have an abortion causing the <cessation of life> of the <thing that is inside the woman's womb>.


Ps. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone with this post. :rolleyes:

Possibly because the pregnant woman DID NOT assent to the actions of the person convicted of a criminal CIDE offence in relation to the use of the abortion pills in that case. That's the clear nicety in law.

The 2nd part of your question refers to a pregnant woman's choice to introduce abortive pills into her body for the purpose of inducing an abortion. Such actions are legislated-for and are legal in countries up to a time limited by law. If that includes the country she lives in, then its OK. Hopefully that answers your question.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

But you're not actually making a point about abortion because you said "at 8+ months" : an abortion at 8 months that leads to the fetus' death will be punished, including when it was done by the woman herself, as I said earlier.

OTOH if it doesn't lead to the fetus' death (because at 8 months the baby can be born alive) then it's not a murder. In either case.

Grand 'm getting to that. Say we change the situation a bit. A man slips abortion pills during the 8th week of pregnancy, pregnancy ends & he is charged with "fetal homicide". Woman has an abortion at 8 weeks, no charges. Both acts lead to the same outcome - pregnancy ends. Why are both not considered "homicide" or "murder"? I understand this a a bit of a semantic discussion. I am pro choice but I believe abortion is what it is. It is murder.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Grand 'm getting to that. Say we change the situation a bit. A man slips abortion pills during the 8th week of pregnancy, pregnancy ends & he is charged with "fetal homicide". Woman has an abortion at 8 weeks, no charges. Both acts lead to the same outcome - pregnancy ends. Why are both not considered "homicide" or "murder"? I understand this a a bit of a semantic discussion. I am pro choice but I believe abortion is what it is. It is murder.

Ah the classic I'm pro choice but post

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Grand 'm getting to that. Say we change the situation a bit. A man slips abortion pills during the 8th week of pregnancy, pregnancy ends & he is charged with "fetal homicide". Woman has an abortion at 8 weeks, no charges. Both acts lead to the same outcome - pregnancy ends. Why are both not considered "homicide" or "murder"? I understand this a a bit of a semantic discussion. I am pro choice but I believe abortion is what it is. It is murder.

So you're pro murder? How does that work?

And FWIW week 8 is still an embryo, not a fetus. Good luck with getting a murder charge for killing an embryo seeing as IVF clinics murder them all the time.

Calina

I think agency of the person who is actually pregnant matters a lot. So if you administer drugs to a woman which will result in the termination of her pregnancy without her express permission, you are assaulting her. The foetus is not separate to her.

Obviously laws will vary but the interests and desires of the pregnant person matter a metric tonne here which incidentally is the underlying philosophy of the pro-choice movement.

That the outcome may be similar in two cases is less important than where the motivation came from in the first place. Women are not mere baby carrying vessels with no rights or autonomy. If men do not want to be fathers they should refrain from having sex. Administering drugs to women without their consent should be beyond the pale and probably should be seen as an aggravating factor for the purpose of dealing with cases in law.

Kidchameleon

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah the classic I'm pro choice but post

I'm' pro choice but nothing. I am just consistent. Abortion is what it is, at least I can admit to that.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm' pro choice but nothing. I am just consistent. Abortion is what it is, at least I can admit to that.

It,is what you believe it is.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It,is what you believe it is.

It is ending a life, that is a fact, not a belief.


Disclaimer. I can have these views despite being pro choice.

SusieBlue

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm' pro choice but nothing. I am just consistent. Abortion is what it is, at least I can admit to that.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Spiking someone’s drink with medication with the intent to cause harm unbeknownst to them is not the same thing as a woman knowingly and consensually procuring an abortion.

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah the classic I'm pro choice but post

the poster can be pro-choice and ask the question he has asked + have the view that he holds. he doesn't have to 100% subscribe to the pro-choice narratives and all views.

eviltwin

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Grand 'm getting to that. Say we change the situation a bit. A man slips abortion pills during the 8th week of pregnancy, pregnancy ends & he is charged with "fetal homicide". Woman has an abortion at 8 weeks, no charges. Both acts lead to the same outcome - pregnancy ends. Why are both not considered "homicide" or "murder"? I understand this a a bit of a semantic discussion. I am pro choice but I believe abortion is what it is. It is murder.

So if abortion is murder should women who have abortions be jailed?

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is ending a life, that is a fact, not a belief.


Disclaimer. I can have these views despite being pro choice.

Again, this is your belief and you are entitled to it, it's not my belief, it's not the belief of the majority of Irish people that voted for abortion and it's not the belief of the judiciary.

Kidchameleon

eviltwin wrote: »

So if abortion is murder should women who have abortions be jailed?

Of course not.


What I am saying is abortion is the ending of a life no matter how you look at it. It is a simple hard truth that people with any integrity should swallow. It is murder, in the same vein as the death penalty ie. murder endorsed by the state. I am in favor of allowing a woman to commit a form of murder on her unborn child, I voted in the recent referendum to allow for legislation as such.



I am also trying to discuss the strange double standard that exists where a woman can have a fetus aborted without consent of the father while a man cannot have a fetus aborted without the consent of the mother. The first scenario will have no consequences for the woman while the second will result in the father having a long, long stretch in prison. Both scenarios would have the same effect on the fetus. I acknowledge that the second situation would lead to serious distress on the mother, but the first could also lead to a similar level of distress on the father.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Again, this is your belief and you are entitled to it, it's not my belief, it's not the belief of the majority of Irish people that voted for abortion and it's not the belief of the judiciary.

Ok grand I respect your belief on that aswell. We disagree but that's fine.