Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:01PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The rights of the mother pretty much override any rights you might want to attribute to the foetus (no matter where you define 'life' as beginning), because of the risk to the mothers health that takes place - and once you start allowing for situations where, for example, mothers are at risk of committing suicide through being pregnant (for extreme cases, e.g. some rape victims may be in this situation), then you quickly lose any way of cleanly limiting abortion to just 'medical reasons' in the law.

Not allowing abortions in such situations is pretty barbaric, and once that much of the argument is conceded to the pro-choice side, then (over time, definitely not immediately) most of the remaining pro-life arguments eventually crumble - regardless of what potentially legitimate moral points they may have.

Czarcasm wrote: »

When one human life is already born, and one human life form is yet to BE born. When the woman sustaining the life of the unborn foetus says she does not want it to be born. When the woman says she does not want to give birth to a child. By ignoring her will, forcing her to continue to sustain the unborn foetus, you are diminishing her value as a human being, in order that the human life you want to live, continues to develop within her womb, and then force her to give birth against her will.

You are immediately placing more value on the human life you want to live, at the expense of the quality of life of the human life you want to suffer so that the one you want to live is born.

"In modern societies" my ass. Apologies for being so blunt about it but there's nothing modern about willingly watching another human being suffering. That is exactly what you are doing when you force a woman to continue with a pregnancy and then give birth against her will.

In modern medicine "in modern societies", doctors examine the quality of life of a person, rather than just the right to life of one human life over another. So no, in modern societies they are much more focused on the quality of life of the individual human being, as opposed to whether they simply be allowed exist. Their quality of life is the more humane approach, than the one that would see them continue to suffer for their belief that everyone has an equal right to life, even those that haven't been born yet.

One person's belief in the right to life, condemns another person to a life of suffering.

Neither of you have addressed my actual points.

In country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

In the minority of cases where medical grounds do come into play, you've not addressed the issue that there are two patients involved not one. You don't kill one patient to save the other. If a child dies inadvertently as a result of saving the Mother that's different, but I don't know of any cases where deliberately killing a child will save the Mother, or deliberately killing the Mother will save the child.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You talk about morals and solutions as if you think an abortion means a quick in and out at the beautician to get your eyebrows done during lunch hour. Debunking that perception however hasn't been helped by publicity hungry women who are now using the issue of abortion to become an overnight internet sensation. That sort of bollocksology only serves to trivialize the issue of abortion, and is not a reality for many thousands of women who have abortions carried out in far less sterile conditions where their own lives are at risk - in hospitals, in the bathroom at home and dump the evidence in a black bag down a laneway and never speak of it again.

What would your moral solution be to prevent a pregnant woman from suffering and then being forced to give birth against her will? Because what you call circumventing someone's right to live, is exactly what you're doing when you look in a woman's eyes and tell her that the life growing inside her is more important than her own.

In "modern society" Ireland, women have been conditioned by that idea their whole lives. So if you think an abortion is as easy as the nice lady on youtube makes it look, well, thank fcuk she isn't representative of anyone but herself and her own experience.

I've never claimed anywhere an abortion is easy, so you're attacking a straw man, but quite a few proponents of it do, including this video. Crushing a baby's head up with forceps and then sucking it remains out by vacuum is not easy.

The whole point is many people do not consider an abortion as killing an innocent human life, if they did I doubt many who opt for an abortion would.

Malari · 10-05-2014 08:07PM

I love the way it's always killing an 'innocent' human life...innocent of what exactly?

You are underestimating people. Of course they know what they are doing with an abortion!

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:08PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Crushing a baby's head up with forceps and then sucking it remains out by vacuum is not easy.

You think that's harder or easier than pushing an intact full term head out?
On a baby you don't want?
Will never know myself for certain but I'll hazard a guess, eh?

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:14PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think that's harder or easier than pushing an intact full term head out?
On a baby you don't want?
Will never know myself for certain but I'll hazard a guess, eh?

I would guess its easier than it is for the child that's just been killed by crushing it's head, and their life has been lost forever. If someone does not want the baby there are plenty of people that would.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:16PM

Malari wrote: »

I love the way it's always killing an 'innocent' human life...innocent of what exactly?

You are underestimating people. Of course they know what they are doing with an abortion!

The likes of Josie Cunningham and the promoter of abortion clinics in this video certainly do, but I don't believe in tarring everyone who has an abortion with the one brush. Some people genuinely seem to believe it is not a human life. In fact it seems to be one of the main arguments I've seen for abortion.

Malari · 10-05-2014 08:16PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I would guess its easier than it is for the child that's just been killed by crushing it's head, and their life has been lost forever. If someone does not want the baby there are plenty of people that would.

But some women don't want the PREGNANCY! Not just the baby.

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:18PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I would guess its easier than it is for the child that's just been killed by crushing it's head, and their life has been lost forever. If someone does not want the baby there are plenty of people that would.

What child? There is no child.
It makes as much sense to call a foetus an adult or an OAP. They most certainly are not a child.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:19PM

Malari wrote: »

But some women don't want the PREGNANCY! Not just the baby.

Then use contraception and don't get pregnant. It's hardly the baby's fault and it does not justify killing them.

KyussBishop · 10-05-2014 08:21PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Neither of you have addressed my actual points.

In country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

I didn't ignore your point, my point was that it doesn't matter whether or not abortions are limited to medical grounds - there are edge-cases which blur the lines between legitimate medical grounds, such as being-suicidal due to the pregnancy, and illegitimate medical grounds, such as faking being suicidal (note: deliberately extreme case here).

How do you legislate for that - do you require a burden of proof, that the person is suicidal? That's a cock-up (well, another one anyway) waiting to happen - making it, as a practical matter, better to not restrict abortion based on arbitrary medical grounds.

Malari · 10-05-2014 08:22PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Then use contraception and don't get pregnant. It's hardly the baby's fault and it does not justify killing them.

Good grief! You think it's that simple do you? No such thing as contraception failing? Rape?

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 08:23PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Neither of you have addressed my actual points.

In country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

In the minority of cases where medical grounds do come into play, you've not addressed the issue that there are two patients involved not one. You don't kill one patient to save the other. If a child dies inadvertently as a result of saving the Mother that's different, but I don't know of any cases where deliberately killing a child will save the Mother, or deliberately killing the Mother will save the child.

I've never claimed anywhere an abortion is easy, so you're attacking a straw man, but quite a few proponents of it do, including this video. Crushing a baby's head up with forceps and then sucking it remains out by vacuum is not easy.

The whole point is many people do not consider an abortion as killing an innocent human life, if they did I doubt many who opt for an abortion would.

Ah. Read into your history and I see you're a devout Christian. Makes sense. You only care about what little baby Jesus would think, sure feck rationality and compassion!

Vito Corleone · 10-05-2014 08:23PM

I thought the video was pretty boring. The way people are going on I thought it was actual footage of the abortion, as in the procedure.

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 08:25PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Then use contraception and don't get pregnant. It's hardly the baby's fault and it does not justify killing them.

Contraceptive methods can and do fail. Women who are raped don't have the option of contraception, except the morning after pill, which can easily fail because it makes you very nauseous.

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:26PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ah. Read into your history and I see you're a devout Christian. Makes sense. You only care about what little baby Jesus would think, sure feck rationality and compassion!

This is the baby jesus remember who in his infinite compassion murders half of all conceived children through spontaneous abortion.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:27PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I didn't ignore your point, my point was that it doesn't matter whether or not abortions are limited to medical grounds - there are edge-cases which blur the lines between legitimate medical grounds, such as being-suicidal due to the pregnancy, and illegitimate medical grounds, such as faking being suicidal (note: deliberately extreme case here).

How do you legislate for that - do you require a burden of proof, that the person is suicidal? That's a cock-up (well, another one anyway) waiting to happen.

There are in deed, and genuine medical cases should be carefully decided on a case by cases basis in line with proper professional medical advice.

The fact remains, in country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

gctest50 · 10-05-2014 08:28PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Then use contraception and don't get pregnant. .............

All forms of it can and do fail

- it would be great if a failsafe,non-permanent,side-effect free version existed

ryan101 wrote: »

I would guess its easier than it is for the child that's just been killed by crushing it's head, and......

what hysterical appeal to whatever nonsense is this supposed to be ?

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:30PM

green_screen wrote: »

Contraceptive methods can and do fail. Women who are raped don't have the option of contraception, except the morning after pill, which can easily fail because it makes you very nauseous.

I don't understand why a women who has been raped or a child conceived as a part of rape should carry any stigma in society. They did nothing wrong, I would have thought in a modern progressive society it's high time to address this stigma, rather than kill a child, who is guilty of no crime.

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:31PM

ryan101 wrote: »

The fact remains, in country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

I don't think that's really shocking as many people as you'd like.
So what?

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:32PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't understand why a women who has been raped or a child conceived as a part of rape should carry any stigma in society. They did nothing wrong, I would have thought in a modern progressive society it's high time to address this stigma, rather than kill a child, who is guilty of no crime.

Again, there is no child. Foetus ≠ child.

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:34PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't understand why a women who has been raped or a child conceived as a part of rape should carry any stigma in society. They did nothing wrong, I would have thought in a modern progressive society it's high time to address this stigma, rather than kill a child, who is guilty of no crime.

Quite predictable you'd once again utterly ignore the woman who was raped and has to carry and give birth to a permanent reminder of that rape.

Malari · 10-05-2014 08:34PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't understand why a women who has been raped or a child conceived as a part of rape should carry any stigma in society. They did nothing wrong, I would have thought in a modern progressive society it's high time to address this stigma, rather than kill a child, who is guilty of no crime.

They don't! There is no stigma, it's entirely about a woman's choice in whether she wants to remain pregnant.

KyussBishop · 10-05-2014 08:35PM

ryan101 wrote: »

There are in deed, and genuine medical cases should be carefully decided on a case by cases basis in line with proper professional medical advice.

The fact remains, in country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

Okey but case-by-case guarantees harm to people, because being required to prove you are suicidal, is a pretty impractical thing, which guarantees that either:
1: There is a massive loophole that allows abortion to anyone who claims they are suicidal, or
2: Guarantees harm to people legitimately requiring an abortion due to being suicidal, because some medical authority arbitrarily decides the pregnant woman is lying.

It's totally impractical to enforce.

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 08:35PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't understand why a women who has been raped or a child conceived as a part of rape should carry any stigma in society. They did nothing wrong, I would have thought in a modern progressive society it's high time to address this stigma, rather than kill a child, who is guilty of no crime.

It's really not to do with stigma, mate. I was raped when I was a teenager, and thankfully I didn't get pregnant (I took the morning after pill and it worked). It's because, well.. It destroys your life. Honestly, you cannot understand how much it ruins you unless you experience it.

It's not the stigma of carrying a rapist's child. It's knowing every single solitary day for 9 months that a part of that man is inside you, against your will, reminding you every single day of what happened to you, no matter how hard you try to forget.

You can take away the stigma with education, but you can never take away the absolute living hell that the woman goes through.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:37PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Quite predictable you'd once again utterly ignore the woman who was raped and has to carry and give birth to a permanent reminder of that rape.

I don't see why the women or the child should be stigmatised in this way for something they didn't do.

Tasden · 10-05-2014 08:39PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't understand why a women who has been raped or a child conceived as a part of rape should carry any stigma in society. They did nothing wrong, I would have thought in a modern progressive society it's high time to address this stigma, rather than kill a child, who is guilty of no crime.

Sometimes its nothing to do with stigma of the child or whatever you seem to be referring to, its the fact that something created by (or as a result of- or however you want to phrase it) the man who forced himself upon you is growing inside you. That part of that person is inside you. You're, through no fault of your own, and against your will carrying something created by a horrible event. And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that the woman may just not want a pregnancy of any kind never mind one that was a result of rape.

Eta: green_screen put it into words more rationally than I could phrase it

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 08:39PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't see why the women or the child should be stigmatised in this way for something they didn't do.

Ah, but you didn't have a single thought for the woman until now, AFTER you'd been called out on it.

AlwaysAnyTime · 10-05-2014 08:41PM

How about: abortions for some, miniature American flags for others

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 08:50PM

green_screen wrote: »

It's not the stigma of carrying a rapist's child. It's knowing every single solitary day for 9 months that a part of that man is inside you, against your will, reminding you every single day of what happened to you, no matter how hard you try to forget.

Why are some sections of society still promoting the mindset that people should feel this way about an innocent child that committed no crime ?

No child is responsible for the crimes of someone else.

An abortion will not make someone forget anything.

Tasden · 10-05-2014 08:58PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Why are some sections of society still promoting the mindset that people should feel this way about an innocent child that committed no crime ?

No child is responsible for the crimes of someone else.

An abortion will not make someone forget anything.

Nobody says anyone should feel that way but people can understand why someone would. Its not about forgetting it, its about not being further forced against your will to do something by the man/event.

Czarcasm · 10-05-2014 09:01PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Neither of you have addressed my actual points.

In country's where abortion is legal, most abortions are not carried out for medical grounds.

In countries where abortion is illegal or only permitted under certain circumstances, how many human lives are lost due to the lack of access to safe medical procedures to terminate the pregnancy? In countries where abortion is legal, more abortions are carried out in hospitals than in private abortion clinics.

In the minority of cases where medical grounds do come into play, you've not addressed the issue that there are two patients involved not one. You don't kill one patient to save the other. If a child dies inadvertently as a result of saving the Mother that's different, but I don't know of any cases where deliberately killing a child will save the Mother, or deliberately killing the Mother will save the child.

I have addressed the issue of doctors assessing the quality of life of both patients in coming to a decision which life takes precedence over another. In cases where the woman has explicitly stated that she does not want to continue the pregnancy, her life takes priority over that of the unborn.

You have yet to address the issue of the woman's wishes to end her pregnancy and whether you believe she should be entitled to make that decision or continue with the pregnancy and be forced to give birth against her will. I understand that you care for the life of the unborn, we all do, but where do you stand on forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy and be forced to give birth against her will? Do you think a woman should have no say in what happens inside her own body? Do you think she should have no say in whether she is forced to give birth to a child when she has made it clear she does not want to give birth, let alone try and support a child she has been forced to give birth to?

I've never claimed anywhere an abortion is easy, so you're attacking a straw man, but quite a few proponents of it do, including this video. Crushing a baby's head up with forceps and then sucking it remains out by vacuum is not easy.

I don't know if you've ever been present when a woman gives birth in a hospital, but I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of things that can go wrong, and even during a delivery when an epidural is administered, the delivery can be brutal, and can tear a woman from the inside out. A caesarean section can be just as brutal when you carve up a woman to extract the foetus from her womb.

Even if everything goes according to a first year science book account of reproduction and delivery (completely unrealistic tbh!) there's no mention of the psychological damage you've just inflicted on a woman whom you just forced to continue the pregnancy against her will and then forced her to give birth, making irreversible changes to her physiology and her mental state, and for what?

So that you wouldn't be denied your perceived right to your own moralising and judging a woman who is already suffering. Except now she has to pick up the pieces of her shattered life and try make the best of it, on top of continuing to support a child she never wanted in the first place.

You're destroying two lives, just so you can feel morally justified in having inflicted your moral standards on one.

The whole point is many people do not consider an abortion as killing an innocent human life, if they did I doubt many who opt for an abortion would.

You couldn't possibly know this for a fact, unless you were psychic, and seeing as you're not (despite your claims to speak for the unborn human life), you certainly can't speak for the millions of women throughout history who have had abortions. Many of the women I have talked to are all too aware of the thought process that they are, as you put it "killing an innocent human life", which causes them such a cognitive dissonance that would have mentally destroyed them were it not for the support of family and friends who cared for them and didn't stigmatise them. These women were punishing themselves enough already without pro-life groups adding to their guilt.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments