Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 01:32PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I give you props for for at least addressing my point but let me just clarify here: you don't think a woman aborting her own child two weeks before it's due should be a punishable offence?

No. I think she probably needs psychological help not punishment.

orubiru · 15-06-2015 01:32PM

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

Given I have not have caused his condition I would have to say I should not be forced to to help him. If I took actions for my own gain which I knew could end up causing him his kidney poisoning then yes I should be forced to help him survive if possible.

So basically, if a woman has sex and gets pregnant then it's "too bad, you shouldn't have had sex"?

Virgil° · 15-06-2015 01:35PM

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

Given I have not have caused his condition I would have to say I should not be forced to to help him. If I took actions for my own gain which I knew could end up causing him his kidney poisoning then yes I should be forced to help him survive if possible.

You may see that i pre-empted your predictable victim blaming in my original post.

Unfortunately your position is completely untenable. As we know from experience its not always the case that the woman is at fault for the pregnancy so the metaphor holds.

Even if it was the case, bodily autonomy and the justice system does not work this way. Your proposition is akin to saying someone who violates bodily autonomy should in turn have theirs violated. Thankfully in civilised society we don't do this.

NachoBusiness · 15-06-2015 01:36PM

eviltwin wrote: »

No. I think she probably needs psychological help not punishment.

Why? A psychiatric report excluded mental disorder.

Do you suggest "psychological help" for all women that would seek an abortion at 29 weeks, or just this one?

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 01:37PM

eviltwin wrote: »

No. I think she probably needs psychological help not punishment.

OK, given the evidence, I think you're making excuses for her at this stage.

kylith · 15-06-2015 01:42PM

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

Given I have not have caused his condition I would have to say I should not be forced to to help him. If I took actions for my own gain which I knew could end up causing him his kidney poisoning then yes I should be forced to help him survive if possible.

Women who are raped have not caused their condition, yet they are still not allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 01:44PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Why? A psychiatric report excluded mental disorder.

Do you suggest "psychological help" for all women that would seek an abortion at 29 weeks, or just this one?

Take each case on its own merits. Intent has a lot to do with it. Taking drugs to start labour doesn't mean she planned to kill the baby, her intention could have been to abandon it. With that in mind I wouldn't want to make a judgment on it. Let's say she'd been killed in a car crash, hit by a drunk driver, do you think the driver should be charged with one or two deaths?

Virgil° · 15-06-2015 01:55PM

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

My proposition is not akin to saying someone should in turn have their's violated. Read what I wrote again.

I believe people should be responsible for their actions, if you do something for your own gain which risks harming another individual you should be punished by helping that harmed individual recover if possible in my opinion .

I have read what you said. And in the scenario you describe: The violinist being poisoned by me and then I in turn being forced to use my body to heal him for 9 months, given I'm the only one who can. This DOES violate my bodily autonomy.
"Being held responsible" is fine when you don't extend that to overriding someones bodily integrity rights.

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 01:57PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Take each case on its own merits. Intent has a lot to do with it. Taking drugs to start labour doesn't mean she planned to kill the baby, her intention could have been to abandon it. With that in mind I wouldn't want to make a judgment on it.

Yeah, about that; were that the case it's doubtful she would have asked where she could "have an illegal abortion" to the clinic that turned her down. Kind of makes her intentions pretty clear. I'm afraid you can make a judgement based on that because that is what the evidence supports.

I'm wondering why you're choosing to ignore this and persist in believing that she is innocent? You do know that it is possible for a woman not to be a victim every time?

Let's say she'd been killed in a car crash, hit by a drunk driver, do you think the driver should be charged with one or two deaths?

If the driver had just prior to the accident asked "where can I knock over a few pedestrians?" I think he might.

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 02:00PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yeah, about that; were that the case it's doubtful she would have asked where she could "have an illegal abortion" to the clinic that turned her down. Kind of makes her intentions pretty clear. I'm afraid you can make a judgement based on that because that is what the evidence supports.

I'm wondering why you're choosing to ignore this and persist in believing that she is innocent? You do know that it is possible for a woman not to be a victim every time?

If the driver had just prior to the accident asked "where can I knock over a few pedestrians?" I think he might.

I'm not saying she's innocent, I'm saying I don't know. Why did she wait so long in the first place? Wouldn't an abortion as early as possible been the logical option? It's an unusual case, a rare case and is not relevant to the discussion. Abortion is legal in the UK, this wasn't a result of lack of availability.

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 02:10PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not saying she's innocent, I'm saying I don't know.

Com'on, given the reported facts of the case it would appear that guilt can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. You'll have to admit that you're kind of grasping at straws to avoid this conclusion though.

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 02:14PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Com'on, given the reported facts of the case it would appear that guilt can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. You'll have to admit that you're kind of grasping at straws to avoid this conclusion though.

How am I grasping at straws? I don't have an opinion as to her intentions either way. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon without the full facts and an article in the Mail of all things is not the full story.

NachoBusiness · 15-06-2015 02:18PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm wondering why you're choosing to ignore this and persist in believing that she is innocent?

Because to do anything else would mean conceding points made on the thread by others and that's the last thing they want to do

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 02:19PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How am I grasping at straws? I don't have an opinion as to her intentions either way.

Actually you do - that she is innocent of any malicious intent. You've said this numerous times.

I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon without the full facts and an article in the Mail of all things is not the full story.

Unless you are willing to demonstrate a similar level of skepticism elsewhere, and not accept the reporting of other articles, then you're cherry-picking.

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 02:22PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Because to do anything else would mean conceding points made on the thread by others and that's the last thing they want to do

I don't know about this as I've not followed your particular tangent that long. I'm only commenting about the rather extreme and bizarre level to which she is willing to argue the innocence of someone who might as well have taken out a full page ad in the Times saying "I'm guilty".

Could be an example of SJW's as discussed in the other thread here.

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 02:24PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you do - that she is innocent of any malicious intent. You've said this numerous times.

Unless you are willing to demonstrate a similar level of skepticism elsewhere, and not accept the reporting of other articles, then you're cherry-picking.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here. I have never said she's innocent. I have said - repeatedly - that I don't know. Her intentions may have been to kill the child in the womb, kill it after delivery or abandon it after delivery. I don't know enough to form an opinion. The mail article is hardly a detailed report, it's a synopsis. Please stop saying I think this woman is innocent when I have said nothing of the sort.

NachoBusiness · 15-06-2015 02:35PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't know about this as I've not followed your particular tangent that long.

Fair enough: well I am in favour of first trimester abortions in Ireland an would vote for it, along also with therapeutic abortion at a later stage.

I'm only commenting about the rather extreme and bizarre level to which she is willing to argue the innocence of someone who might as well have taken out a full page ad in the Times saying "I'm guilty".

Fair enough. Well I posted that case to back up the following point that I made last night:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

..the reality is that the vast vast majority of women want society to legally force pregnant women to carry their child full term or face the consequences if she didn't, it's only a question of at which point of the pregnancy each woman would like that law set at. That's the real truth. It's just a shame it's not admitted from the get go so a more honest and needed debate could be had.

You see, I don't believe any woman wouldn't want Sarah Catt prosecuted for what she did. Even if they just believe she needs psychological help, that in and of itself shows that they don't truly support women having an abortion whenever they want or think that abortions are "nobody's business but the mother's".

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 02:44PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You see, I don't believe any woman wouldn't want Sarah Catt prosecuted for what she did. Even if they just believe she needs psychological help, that in and of itself shows that they don't truly support women having an abortion whenever they want or think that abortions are "nobody's business but the mother's".

Let the female posters here speak for themselves why don't you? I don't believe she should have been charged at all.

She took unknown medicine and gave birth alone. She needs to be checked out mentally and physically and given what help she needs. It's not about punishment. She should have been able to have labour induced in the hospital, there might have been a different outcome.

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 02:45PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here. I have never said she's innocent.

That's not really true. You've stated that she would be in need of psychological care rather than punishment - if ever there was a verdict of innocence through insanity, you delivered it - so don't fib.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You see, I don't believe any woman wouldn't want Sarah Catt prosecuted for what she did. Even if they just believe she needs psychological help, that in and of itself shows that they don't truly support women having an abortion whenever they want or think that abortions are "nobody's business but the mother's".

What on Earth are you doing trying to pin down consistent logic from either side of the abortion debate? You'd have better luck staging a production of Henry VI with a troupe of drunk monkeys.

inocybe · 15-06-2015 02:59PM

The only thing she should have been charged for was refusing to reveal the whereabouts of the foetus. She took a drug that hospitals use to induce labour. It is not a crime to induce your own labour, nor is it a crime to give birth on your own.
She obviously has psychological problems and should be helped. It's disturbing that this case was allowed to go before a judge who actively campaigns for the pro-life movement.

NachoBusiness · 15-06-2015 03:15PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here. I have never said she's innocent. I have said - repeatedly - that I don't know. Her intentions may have been to kill the child in the womb, kill it after delivery or abandon it after delivery. I don't know enough to form an opinion. The mail article is hardly a detailed report, it's a synopsis. Please stop saying I think this woman is innocent when I have said nothing of the sort.

Cop out. You are just going around the houses in an effort to avoid the central question this case brings up. Can't you just concede that Sarah Catt wanted to abort the child for the sake of the bloody discussion. Would that really be too much to ask.

eviltwin wrote: »

Let the female posters here speak for themselves why don't you?

I am not stopping them speaking for themselves, unlike them who are telling me that the topic is none of my business.

I don't believe she should have been charged at all.

She took unknown medicine and gave birth alone. She needs to be checked out mentally and physically and given what help she needs. It's not about punishment. She should have been able to have labour induced in the hospital, there might have been a different outcome.

Sigh. Okay, forget Sarah Catt. Let's just say a woman in the UK wanted to abort her child at 29 weeks, abortion clinic refused her and so the woman goes online and buys drugs. Two weeks before she is due to give birth she takes them, the baby dies and is stillborn. This woman has no mental health issues, she's just cold and calculating and didn't want the kid. Now, do you feel what this women did should be legal or illegal?

K-9 · 15-06-2015 03:21PM

YurOK2 wrote: »

I was going to reply to some posts but I actually can't be bothered. The same people will regurgitate the same horrible shíte no matter what you say.
I made my point and I stand by it. Every woman in the world should be able to access abortion services without any terms and conditions attached to same, without having to leave their home country and without needing access to excessive amounts of money. The end.

No terms and conditions?

Demonique · 15-06-2015 03:27PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are ignoring the reason that people don't believe in it. Most people do not support abortion because they don't value the mother.

Fixed your post for you

The Corinthian · 15-06-2015 03:32PM

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

Murderers and rapists obviously have psychological problems, Should we help them and not charge them?

As long as they're women. That appears to be where things are going; abolition of custodial sentences for women.

Demonique · 15-06-2015 03:34PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Should we allow paid-surrogacy arrangements, just because some states in the USA do?

What's wrong with paid surrogacy arrangements though?

Demonique · 15-06-2015 03:50PM

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You make childbirth sound like a complete horror story.

Its not . I seen my 2 children brought into the world , it was tough . One need sectioned after a 24 hours of labour.

But guess what. My wife was grand after. None of these night terrors and flashback you speak of.

What would you know about giving birth? You're not the one who gave birth.

inocybe · 15-06-2015 04:52PM

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

Murderers and rapists obviously have psychological problems, Should we help them and not charge them?

Inducing labour is neither murder nor rape

15-06-2015 04:52PM

Demonique wrote: »

What's wrong with paid surrogacy arrangements though?

It tends to exploit poor people. I have no problems with altruistic surrogacy, but the idea of a woman being forced for economic reasons to go through labour and pregnancy is unsettling.

I'm not asking anybody else to share my view. I'm not even insisting my view is correct.

I am saying that we ought never copycat other countries' rules just because our citizens can avail of those rules abroad.

eviltwin · 15-06-2015 05:11PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Cop out. You are just going around the houses in an effort to avoid the central question this case brings up. Can't you just concede that Sarah Catt wanted to abort the child for the sake of the bloody discussion. Would that really be too much to ask.

I am not stopping them speaking for themselves, unlike them who are telling me that the topic is none of my business.

Sigh. Okay, forget Sarah Catt. Let's just say a woman in the UK wanted to abort her child at 29 weeks, abortion clinic refused her and so the woman goes online and buys drugs. Two weeks before she is due to give birth she takes them, the baby dies and is stillborn. This woman has no mental health issues, she's just cold and calculating and didn't want the kid. Now, do you feel what this women did should be legal or illegal?

Let's assume she did try and abort. Should she be in prison? No. The option should be there to induce labour at any stage in a hospital setting, if that's not an option then it's going to happen that some women take matters into their own hands.

NachoBusiness · 15-06-2015 06:05PM

Demonique wrote: »

What would you know about giving birth? You're not the one who gave birth.

Oh for God sake. So a man daren't have an opinion on a topic where child birth is part of it, cause he hasn't given birth. That's up there with there with 'You're not even a parent, so shut up' "argument" that is often reached for by the barrel scrapers.

eviltwin wrote: »

Let's assume she did try and abort. Should she be in prison? No. The option should be there to induce labour at any stage in a hospital setting, if that's not an option then it's going to happen that some women take matters into their own hands.

So, any women can abort a child days before it's due, bury it in the back garden and as far as you're concerned, they should not get charged with anything.

Unbelievable, truly.

Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Comments