Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

SusieBlue · 11-05-2018 11:47AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You just danced all over the idea of law (the proposed law)/ procedure / medical opinion and expertise.

You've danced all over the idea of conclusions drawn from a mechanism of investigation - which don't happen to concur with your position.

You've conflate the 8th with failures in developing mechanisms to allow doctors to navigate the 8th quickly.

Emotion is holding sway here. Whilst it's fine to be passionate about your view, sober assessment of the information at your disposal cant be thrown out the window.

You are wrong. You are incorrectly stating that the 8th had nothing to do with her death when it most certainly had a hand in it.
There is nothing else to say on the matter only that you are wrong.

....... · 11-05-2018 11:50AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 12:06PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

She was miscarrying. Her baby was dying and she was kept in hospital for a week, waiting for nature to take its course, in a great deal of pain and suffering. This didn’t happen suddenly. She was left there for a week.
That in itself was a cruelty.
There was no hope for her baby.
She absolutely without a doubt should have been granted an abortion, to speed up the process so she could begin grieving for her lost child.
Which is what she wanted. She should have been allowed to make that choice.
The 12 week rule should never have been applicable because the pregnancy wasn’t viable.

You cannot deny the obvious. You are making yourself look bullheaded. You are being extremely short sighted and disrespectful.

Anyone with a brain can understand that if she had been given an abortion when she requested one, the medical mismanagement wouldn’t have happened, sepsis wouldn’t have developed and she wouldn’t have died.
She’d have gone home to grieve in peace and we’d never have heard of her.

The 8th created a grey area that tied doctors hands during an emergency. They were so concerned with interpreting the law, they refused her request just to cover themselves.
This should absolutely not happen. Doctors are there to look after people not make assumptions about the law.

Stop embarrassing yourself. The 8th had a hand in her death.
It isn’t even up for discussion. I won’t even entertain it from you.

You just danced all over the idea of law (the proposed law)/ procedure / medical opinion and expertise.

You've danced all over the idea of conclusions drawn from a mechanism of investigation - which don't happen to concur with your position.

You've conflate the 8th with failures in developing mechanisms to allow doctors to navigate the 8th quickly.

Emotion is holding sway here. Whilst it's fine to be passionate about your view, sober assessment of the information at your disposal cant be thrown out the window.b

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 01:00PM

Delirium wrote: »

There are doctors on record saying that if an abortion had been provided, Savita would be alive today.

I'm not supposing that untrue.

One possibility is that the doctors <snip> up in their assessment of Savita's condition rendering the abortion option to late. The official investigation into the circumstances surrounding her treatment lists appalling oversight as their No.1 contributor. Not restrictions (perceived or real) involving the 8th. Medical systems failures.

Another contributor can be perceptions and confusions about the 8th. This has to do with failure to establish clear clinical guidelines and assessment procedures involving the range of medical cases that can be expected to arise.

We have a number of former chairs of the Institute of Ob's and Gyn's declaring they have terminated and that the eighth has never gotten in the way of them. Are we to suppose that in every case they have been involved in, the women were on the point of death just before their 8th-tied hands could act? And that all these on-the-verge-of-death women happened to survive?

Perceptions about the 8th, as a result of failure to form comprehensive policies and procedures is not the fault of the 8th

thus...

The legal situation required her health to diminish to the point where her life was in jeopardy before an abortion could be an option..

... is an unwarranted conclusion.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 01:13PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This particular poster:

- doesn't blame the 8th because Savita's husband does.

- doesn't blame the 8th because Savita stepped outside the bounds of the forthcoming legislation in requesting an abortion at 17 weeks.

- doesn't blame the 8th when a pro-abortion-on-demand chair of the institute of obs and gyn's states (and no one has contradicted his stating thus) that abortions up to viability ought to be the remit of the woman.

- doesn't blame the 8th because 5 former chairs of the same institute insist that the 8th didn't tie their hands. They terminated when they felt they had to - and can't be considered pro-life to the extent that the current chair can be consider pro-choice

- doesn't blame the 8th when the official investigation in the matter points the finger at medical systems failures as the No. 1 contributor.

- doesn't blame the 8th even when the chair of the above investigation, when standing outside the rigors of the investigation process elevates his criticism of the 8th. It's one matter to be confined by a group opinion when writing a formal report, another to express a personal opinion.

I have seen it time and time again. They word salad around and refuse to accept evidence.

One mans words salad can be that same mans' inability to follow argumentation down the rabbit hole.

....... · 11-05-2018 01:20PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 01:30PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've made my case: medical systems failure cited as the first cause of Savita's death in an official investigation. The contributors to that first cause aren't the 8th.

The investigation doesn't condemn the 8th. Rather it points out that clarification relating to it (whether it does or doesn't prevent action) is needed. The juries out, in other words.

What can you produce?

Now can you change your disgusting signature please and stop used it to taunt and mock women who have had to suffer abortions?

Reality is contained therein:

- some pregnancies will arise from utter carelessness.

- in order to value the woman more than the foetus in those cases, we have to value the foetus at less than the carelessness in which that pregnancy came about. Zero is where we must end up to warrant abortion on demand. The foetus is worth less than even the most careless of circumstances in which a woman falls pregnant

How do you think any woman who has had to travel to the UK for FFA feels when they see your flippant, untrue and vile signature?

I'll edit to clarify the category of pregnancy I'm referring to.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 01:37PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The last word salad you stumbled over was this.

Where did we start? I suggested the the unrestricted to 12 + restricted thereafter would become looser. You don't get looser that unrestricted up to 12 so the 'looser' refers to abortions post 12.

It isn't material to that position that most abortions occur pre-12. My claim involved what would happen post-12. That it would be looser than suggested.

You have said nothing yet in that regard - other than to suggest the good doctor is taken out of context - regarding post 12 week abortions. So give a context other than the one suggested by his comments.

My position doesnt give a fig whether there will be 1 or 1000 abortions post 12 weeks. It merely holds looser than 'limited access'

Can you focus?

Can you point out which sentence is causing you the roadblock. Or can I take it that you haven't found another context for the good doctor saying he would defer to his patients up to the point of viability?

I've no problem retracting if he is being taken out of context. It would give me some hope that there wouldn't be a free for all up to viability.

Delirium · 11-05-2018 01:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not supposing that untrue.

One possibility is that the doctors <snip> up in their assessment of Savita's condition rendering the abortion option to late. The official investigation into the circumstances surrounding her treatment lists appalling oversight as their No.1 contributor. Not restrictions (perceived or real) involving the 8th. Medical systems failures.

Another contributor can be perceptions and confusions about the 8th. This has to do with failure to establish clear clinical guidelines and assessment procedures involving the range of medical cases that can be expected to arise.

We have a number of former chairs of the Institute of Ob's and Gyn's declaring they have terminated and that the eighth has never gotten in the way of them. Are we to suppose that in every case they have been involved in, the women were on the point of death just before their 8th-tied hands could act? And that all these on-the-verge-of-death women happened to survive?

Perceptions about the 8th, as a result of failure to form comprehensive policies and procedures is not the fault of the 8th

thus...

... is an unwarranted conclusion.

In that case can you explain why an abortion wasn't performed before Savita died?

Why wasn't an abortion performed when requested once it was established the pregnancy wasn't going have a successful delivery?

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 01:44PM

Delirium wrote: »

In that case can you explain why an abortion wasn't performed before Savita died?

Having read something of the investigative report, I conclude a catalogue of medical systems failures and <snip>. It is the No.1 cause indicated by the investigation.

I don't exclude confusion around the 8th as a contributor, given the report appears to do same. But confusion around the 8th involves a failure to deal with the 8th systematically and procedurally. The 8th itself isn't being condemned by the report, from my reading of it.

It's a matter of personal opinion - but I do base it on a career watching people under pressure seek to find a way out from the blame being laid upon them. The 8th is a convenient scapegoat if anyone wanted to use it as one.

Why wasn't an abortion performed when requested once it was established the pregnancy wasn't going have a successful delivery?

Unless I'm mistaken, the person requesting it wasn't a medical practitioner. I don't suppose you having a problem with the idea of medical practiioner's being the ones to decide medical need?

As to why the abortion wasn't performed, see my previous points above.

....... · 11-05-2018 01:45PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 01:47PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hopefully the edit makes things clearer for you.

....... · 11-05-2018 01:51PM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 11-05-2018 02:03PM

MOD NOTE

anti, you've already received a card for swearing only to swear again in another post.

Please cease if you wish to avoid infractions and/or a ban.

Delirium · 11-05-2018 02:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Having read something of the investigative report, I conclude a catalogue of medical systems failures and <snip>. It is the No.1 cause indicated by the investigation.

I don't exclude confusion around the 8th as a contributor, given the report appears to do same. But confusion around the 8th involves a failure to deal with the 8th systematically and procedurally. The 8th itself isn't being condemned by the report, from my reading of it.

It's a matter of personal opinion - but I do base it on a career watching people under pressure seek to find a way out from the blame being laid upon them. The 8th is a convenient scapegoat if anyone wanted to use it as one.

The 8th is a constitutional restraint on doctors, so it's hardly surprising they would examine ways things could be done better within that constraint.

That doesn't mean that the 8th wasn't the root cause.

Unless I'm mistaken, the person requesting it wasn't a medical practitioner. I don't suppose you having a problem with the idea of medical practiioner's being the ones to decide medical need?

I would see it as being both patient and doctor to decide.

And we haven't established that the doctors didn't agree that an abortion was warranted when Savita requested it.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 02:18PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The intent is to point out a reality. Some realities might cause hurt. The question is whether it is the hurt or the reality which ought be suppressed.

How do you think any woman who has had to travel to the UK for FFA feels when they see your flippant, untrue and vile signature? Do you think a woman who lost a wanted child valued the life in her womb at zero value?

The woman who fell pregnant through utter carelessness and who wants an abortion to escape the consequences of carelessness can't be said to want the child. The child wasn't wanted. It was an "accident". The child isn't wanted - an abortion is.

Such cases will exist. And because such cases will exist and because such cases have to be catered for, the life in the womb must equal zero

I don't know why you're focusing on FFA (which isn't the product of carelessness) or people who want a child (which isn't the product of carelessness)

Have you thought that it's you're propensity to see word salad at every turn that might be at play here?

....... · 11-05-2018 02:26PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 02:27PM

Delirium wrote: »

The 8th is a constitutional restraint on doctors, so it's hardly surprising they would examine ways things could be done better within that constraint.

Better (in terms of running efficiently) yes. But it's also about but identifying clearly where the boundaries are. In so far as the 8th comes into question, it appears that lack of clarity exists.

That doesn't mean that the 8th wasn't the root cause.

Indeed. But it doesn't mean it was. 5 former chairs have said it doesn't constrain - in the sense that they (who've never lost a patient) didn't have to wait until the patient near death before they could terminate.

I would see it as being both patient and doctor to decide.

Fair enough: I'm guided by the current proposed legislation (notwithstanding the fact that the current chair of the institute appears to want to go a step further and leave it up to the woman up to the point of viability)

And we haven't established that the doctors didn't agree that an abortion was warranted when Savita requested it.

It's a long report - I flipped to page 55 to get the 3 major causes and thereafter, the contributor to causes.

A car won't run without a spark plug and a crankshaft. The crankshaft is, however, considered a more critical componant

Likewise, we can toss around the detail all day long, it's the big components we need to focus on. Number 1 component: medical misadventure / systems failures. In there too, reference to the 8th and the need to understand it's role.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 02:28PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You need to point out how that occurs. They aren't referenced in the need to value the life at zero. Carelessness/selfishness is.

....... · 11-05-2018 02:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 11-05-2018 02:42PM

“Antiskeptic&#8221 wrote:

The woman who fell pregnant through utter carelessness and who wants an abortion to escape the consequences of carelessness can't be said to want the child. The child wasn't wanted. It was an "accident". The child isn't wanted - an abortion is.

Such cases will exist. And because such cases will exist and because such cases have to be catered for, the life in the womb must equal zero

Must we pretend you didn’t already lose this baseless assertion just a page or two ago?

The unborn of course has value, that which appreciates the longer the pregnancy develops.

Kinda rude to make me have to rehash this with you. Have you simply forgotten because the cognitive dissonance is necessary for your viewpoint? Or do you hope new readers won’t have seen you get dispelled of this notion.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 02:59PM

Overheal wrote: »

Must we pretend you didn’t already lose this baseless assertion just a page or two ago?

I don't recall this loss??

The unborn of course has value, that which appreciates the longer the pregnancy develops.

The unborn have whatever value the mother places on it up to twelve weeks*. Zero if she places zero / infinite if she places infinite.

Since society needs to account for all comers in providing abortion on demand, our baseline value is zero.

Kinda rude to make me have to rehash this with you. Have you simply forgotten because the cognitive dissonance is necessary for your viewpoint? Or do you hope new readers won’t have seen you get dispelled of this notion.

By all means point to this mortal wound you suppose to have inflicted.

*potentially up to the point of viability if Dr Boylan's view comes to hold sway

....... · 11-05-2018 03:08PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 03:36PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a pitfall we can all fall into, indeed.

The value society attaches to a woman's autonomy, no matter how carelessly she handed it over to pregnancy and no matter how selfish and puerile the reasons for her wanting to recapture it, must exceed the value society places on life in the womb.

In order to provide for abortion on demand.

That doesn't fit your narrative. You can point to all the difficult cases you want, it doesn't alter the existence of cases such as these.

Overheal · 11-05-2018 03:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The unborn have whatever value the mother places on it up to twelve weeks*. Zero if she places zero / infinite if she places infinite.

And everything in between. Thanks for the retraction/clarification. I’m sure if your signature reflected this rather than unrealistic black and white thinking there wouldn’t be much of an issue.

....... · 11-05-2018 03:42PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 11-05-2018 03:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a pitfall we can all fall into, indeed.

The value society attaches to a woman's autonomy, no matter how carelessly she handed it over to pregnancy and no matter how selfish and puerile the reasons for her wanting to recapture it, must exceed the value society places on life in the womb.

In order to provide for abortion on demand.

That doesn't fit your narrative. You can point to all the difficult cases you want, it doesn't alter the existence of cases such as these.

Your narrative seems based on this slut-shaming idea again. It excludes the possibility that rape, incest, unplanned pregnancies even with the best combination and execution of family planning methods, and Planned pregnancies that will still be compounded by medical complications for both the woman and the unborn, still happen.

You like to pretend these don’t happen. It seems easier for you to assume it’s irresponsible whores that are the cause of abortion.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 03:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

And everything in between. Thanks for the retraction/clarification. I’m sure if your signature reflected this rather than unrealistic black and white thinking there wouldn’t be much of an issue.

I think it's plain enough: society is being asked to stoop to accommodate the lowest of the low. No matter how low.

Overheal · 11-05-2018 03:45PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it's plain enough: society is being asked to stoop to accommodate the lowest of the low. No matter how low.

Ridiculous. Society is being asked to amend its constitution. From there you can still legislate a baseline for what is acceptable and what is not. This Pandora’s Box/Slippery Slope fallacy is not fooling anyone.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 03:53PM

Overheal wrote: »

Your narrative seems based on this slut-shaming idea again. It excludes the possibility that rape, incest, unplanned pregnancies even with the best combination and execution of family planning methods, and Planned pregnancies that will still be compounded by medical complications for both the woman and the unborn, still happen.

My sig (for example) spans the full range of possibilities. And points to the fact that all must be accommodated.

It counters the YES idea that we are only dealing with the noblest of cases. We're not so let's stop pretending we are.

You like to pretend these don’t happen. It seems easier for you to assume it’s irresponsible whores that are the cause of abortion.

There will exist a range from the most ignoble to the most noble. I'd warrant the normally distributed curve will hold sway here. Rape, incest, FFA's and stringent contraceptive use (the most arguably noble) will occupy the right hand side of the curve.

Carelessness and selfishness will figure to significant degree. Without my having to suppose either your extreme or the one you project onto me.

Let's not pretend that it won't.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments