Question For Clydeside_Sheep

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Clydeside Sheep - What is your opinion on the fact that Donald Trump cutting funding to organisations outwith the US that give abortion as an option actually increases the number of abortions and more women die?

 

His pro life stance is killing more unborn babies not saving them.

 

My opinion is that the statement in bold is absolute garbage.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

@@Clydeside_Sheep

 

Just read this article describing the life of someone who is 'intersex'

 

http://news.sky.com/story/model-hanne-gaby-odiele-speaks-about-what-it-means-to-be-intersex-10744214

 

 

What would be the view of the church on these people, given she can't reproduce.

 

Nae having a pop, just curious

 

@@Poodler

 

Well, the worth of a person isn't measured by their ability to reproduce. Persons as per your link are as precious people as anyone else.

 

I don't think the Church has a position on people born with this kind of rare chromosome disorder to be honest. Although there probably a fair sized number of people globally who fit the definition, statistically its not significant and is a fairly new discovery too.

 

I suspect it might be inclined to view individuals as men or women with chromosomes disorders, rather than "intersex".

[The Boofon]

Why did Moses live to be over a 1000 years old? Surely that's impossible?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Just to pick you up on this, you think that there are very few cases where pregnancy is a threat to a women's life. What are you basing this on? Guesswork, wishful thinking?

Let's take eptopic pregnancies which have a rate of around 2%. These will have fatal consequences for the mother if the pregnancy continues.

Im basing it on the statistics that very few women die as a result of being pregnant.

 

Ectopic pregnancies were also the sole example I could think of, where a pregnancy can be a threat to the womans life. The NHS says this affects 1.1 - 1.25% of pregnancies. That surely fits the definition of "very few".

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Ectopic-pregnancy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

the case of a car crash where the mother has injuries that require a termination to allow treatment?

What kind of injuries would require an abortion to allow treatment?

 

If the injured woman needs treatment, give the treatment, I cant think how a deliberate abortion would help her.

 

Do you think there is ever a situation where termination would be acceptable

Its never morally permissable to do evil, even to achieve something good. The end does not justify means.

 

A deliberate abortion is always wrong. But if an unborn child died accidentally as a result of honest efforts to help a sick or injured women - that is different. There was no intent to kill, and a greater evil has been avoided (the death of the child and its mother).

 

This is the principle of "double effect" which originates in Thomist philosophy.

 

A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may still remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in the greater evil of the death of both the mother and the fetus.

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Why did Moses live to be over a 1000 years old? Surely that's impossible?

 

He was only 120.

 

Still sounds fanciful, I agree.

 

I dont know, but maybe a calendar year for the jews of that time was shorter than a calendar year in our time.

Even today there are various different calendars in use in the world.

 

The most common and best is the Gregorian calendar, invented by yes, the Catholic Church, as a modification of the Julian Calendar introduced by Julius Caesar.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

That said the church have inspired, made or contributed to great beers and pubs

 

So for that I raise a few glasses of Sint sixtus abbey beers to CS tonight

 

Cheers mate

 

It takes a man of good taste to appreciate these things, as you so ably demonstrate.

 

I tend to prefer the wines as opposed to the beers, but hey its all good!

 

A relative of mine was a benedictine monk at Buckfast Abbey for >50 years. I only met him once. I remember seeing a big production tank of buckfast at the Abbey and getting to try a heavily diluted sip. I also remember the giant redwood trees at the Abbey.

[Monkey]

Im basing it on the statistics that very few women die as a result of being pregnant.

Ectopic pregnancies were also the sole example I could think of, where a pregnancy can be a threat to the womans life. The NHS says this affects 1.1 - 1.25% of pregnancies. That surely fits the definition of "very few".http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Ectopic-pregnancy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Starting with eptopic pregnancies, that's about 12,000 eptopic pregnancies a year in the U.K. alone. I'm guessing that 12,000 deaths a year in the U.K. Is an "acceptable" number?

 

And the rate increases to 3% in non-whites and 4% in those with assisted fertilisation but again that's an ok rate of loss I guess.

 

Every day worldwide, approximately 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth and that's in a situation where terminations are available to save women's lives. I'm not sure what the number would be otherwise.

 

What kind of injuries would require an abortion to allow treatment?

If the injured woman needs treatment, give the treatment, I cant think how a deliberate abortion would help her.

 

Any injury that has resulted in cardiac arrest as the pregnancy has to be ended to give the mother the best hope of the heart being restarted as the volume of blood flow in the mother's body has to be increased to assist CPR.

 

As for other situations, many cardiac conditions as the strain on the heart of pregnancy can kill the mother, many renal conditions and also cancer can all require a termination to allow treatment of the mother.

 

Its never morally permissable to do evil, even to achieve something good. The end does not justify means.

A deliberate abortion is always wrong. But if an unborn child died accidentally as a result of honest efforts to help a sick or injured women - that is different. There was no intent to kill, and a greater evil has been avoided (the death of the child and its mother).

This is the principle of "double effect" which originates in Thomist philosophy.

 

A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may still remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in the greater evil of the death of both the mother and the fetus.

 

So in this example if there is an eptopic pregnancy then the doctors must operate to remove the Fallopian tubes and in doing so the death of the foetus is ok but if drugs are administered to avoid an operation but rather terminate the pregnancy then that is not allowed......I can see that it's not your body your happy to let doctors hack apart for the sake of semantics!

 

So if a pregnancy has to be terminated deliberately to save a women's life it should not be allowed but if a foetus dies as a result of treatment of the mother then that is ok as long as the termination is an unintended consequence.

 

So pump a pregnant women full of radiotherapy to treat her cancer, without terminating the pregnancy first, so the inevitable stillbirth can occur at some later date just to add to her suffering. As by your logic to terminate before starting treatment would be a deliberate act of killing the foetus but it would be ok for it to die as a result of administering the radiotherapy to the mother. Full of compassion you are, you should explain this view to Mr Halappanavar if you get the chance, I'm sure he will be facinated by your logic.

 

Just so I'm clear your position is a termination of a foetus should never be legal?

[robbojunior]

Morality is not fixed despite what the Catholics tell you. Life is not black and white. All you can do is try to make the best decisions you can.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar clydeside's attitude would change if it was one of his nearest and dearest who would die without an abortion in any of the scenarios you mention Monkey.

[spamspamspam]

You need to be intellectually honest. You are going to extreme lengths to avoid having to accept the truth.

 

Here are statements made to a 1981 US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, which solicited expert opinion on this matter:

 

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

 

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth

Harvard University Medical School

 

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

 

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni

Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

 

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [it] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

 

Dr. Jerome LeJeune

Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

 

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

 

Professor Hymie Gordon

Mayo Clinic

 

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”

 

Dr. Watson A. Bowes

University of Colorado Medical School

 

The official senate report concluded:

 

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

 

Quotes taken from this timely article, I suggest a read of the whole thing:

 

http://www.onepeterfive.com/its-time-to-demand-intellectual-honesty-about-abortion/

 

Its not "my" definition, its sciences definition.

 

Downs syndrome people have "something wrong with them" (for want of a kinder expression) but are still human.

 

Bongioanni - Catholic

LeJeune - Catholic Pro-Life campaigner. Very friendly with a couple of Popes as well. Used to visit them regularly.

Gordon - Orthodox Jew, very against contraception and took the hardline view on abortion.

Bowes - Pro-life campaigner.

 

Thats not a global scientific consensus of when a human life begins, thats a republican senate committee cherry picking experts to get the political answer they want to produce a bill.

A form of life begins at conception. Life as in a living organism made up of cells. Not a human as a human being or human life is defined.

 

You defined human life as an organism with 46 chromosomes, people with Downs have 48. If part of the definition you are using is that a human has 46 chromosomes, thats what makes the bundle of cells different from cancer, then people with downs are no longer human by that definition.

[Big Man]

Obviously it will increase the number of illegal abortions but it will reduce the total number of abortions which is the point surely?

 

You would think that, but I took his comment to mean that driving abortions underground actually increases the net uptake of them.

 

Hopefully we will be provided with some statistics soon.

[manboobs109]

There can be no statistics to prove that as illegal abortions are obviously unrecorded. It was just a totally pish point to have a go at the 'religious freak' that everybody likes to pick on

[spamspamspam]

 

My opinion is that the statement in bold is absolute garbage.

 

According to all the stats abortion figures went up when Bush did this and then down when Obama undid it.

[spamspamspam]

 

Your opinion is wrong.

 

Making abortions illegal can increase the numbers and has in this case in the past.

 

You supporting that is killing more unborn babies.

 

 

I think it has more to do with the charities that are affected also give advice on family planning, free contraception and womans health. When their funding is cut they cant offer any of their services and advice in some areas and with that abortion in those areas then rise.

 

They are still legal abortions, just paid for by other charities and people.

[caledonia]

There can be no statistics to prove that as illegal abortions are obviously unrecorded. It was just a totally pish point to have a go at the 'religious freak' that everybody likes to pick on

Same guy jds192 who had a go at me for supporting the snp but would not give an alternative or say which party he supports apparently its a secret (read into that what you will)

 

Its easy to jump in with pish,crap snpbad etc but if he is hiding behind his own views he wont get any reply from me

Same with other trolls

[manboobs109]

 

 

I think it has more to do with the charities that are affected also give advice on family planning, free contraception and womans health. When their funding is cut they cant offer any of their services and advice in some areas and with that abortion in those areas then rise.

 

They are still legal abortions, just paid for by other charities and people.

That's a totally different point though Spammer. Making abortions illegal doesn't increase the number of abortions, limiting birth control probably does though.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Starting with eptopic pregnancies, that's about 12,000 eptopic pregnancies a year in the U.K. alone. I'm guessing that 12,000 deaths a year in the U.K. Is an "acceptable" number?

 

And the rate increases to 3% in non-whites and 4% in those with assisted fertilisation but again that's an ok rate of loss I guess.

You are wittering pish here. I have never suggested anyone amount of deaths among pregnant women is "acceptable".

 

You are the one who is suggesting killing is acceptable.

 

Every day worldwide, approximately 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth and that's in a situation where terminations are available to save women's lives. I'm not sure what the number would be otherwise.

Source?

 

And please clarify, beyond a rare ectopic pregnancy which we have already discussed, what kind of illness or situation is there which means an abortion might save a woman's life?

 

Any injury that has resulted in cardiac arrest as the pregnancy has to be ended to give the mother the best hope of the heart being restarted as the volume of blood flow in the mother's body has to be increased to assist CPR.

Source?

 

What kind of injuries can result in cardiac arrest in an otherwise healthy young woman?

 

Two comnments on your quote here:

 

1) Being pregnant does not affect the amount of blood flow within a womans body

 

2) If a pregnant womans heart had stopped, you think the first priority should be to kill her unborn child (the significant time taken for which would inevitably result in her own death too) as opposed to quickly trying to save her?

 

all require a termination to allow treatment of the mother.

That patently untrue, being pregnant does not preclude any type of medical care being given to a woman.

 

None of these situations demonstrate that an abortion "saved the womans life". Being pregnant is not the threat to her life. Abortion takes life, it doesn't save it.

 

So pump a pregnant women full of radiotherapy to treat her cancer, without terminating the pregnancy first, so the inevitable stillbirth can occur at some later date just to add to her suffering.

In what way would the accidental death of the child, resulting from honesty efforts to save the woman, cause her any greater suffering than the deliberate death of the child from a deliberate abortion?

 

At least in the first instance she could console herself that the death was not intentional.

[Big Man]

That's a totally different point though Spammer. Making abortions illegal doesn't increase the number of abortions, limiting birth control probably does though.

 

To be fair to that boy I have read before somewhere that restrictive abortion laws are not necessarily associated with lower abortion rates but I can't be arsed to go digging for numbers.

 

Abortion is A-okay with me...

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Morality is not fixed despite what the Catholics tell you. Life is not black and white. All you can do is try to make the best decisions you can.

Morality is very clear and unchanging. It only becomes fluid if self-interest gets in the way.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar clydeside's attitude would change if it was one of his nearest and dearest who would die without an abortion in any of the scenarios you mention Monkey.

If people attitudes change, that is self interest, nothing more. What is right or wrong does not change.

 

Its laughable this portrayal of abortion as a life saving thing. In the majority of cases, it is retrospective contraception.

[manboobs109]

You are wittering pish here. I have never suggested anyone amount of deaths among pregnant women is "acceptable".

 

You are the one who is suggesting killing is acceptable.

 

 

Source?

 

And please clarify, beyond a rare ectopic pregnancy which we have already discussed, what kind of illness or situation is there which means an abortion might save a woman's life?

 

 

Source?

 

What kind of injuries can result in cardiac arrest in an otherwise healthy young woman?

 

Two comnments on your quote here:

 

1) Being pregnant does not affect the amount of blood flow within a womans body

 

2) If a pregnant womans heart had stopped, you think the first priority should be to kill her unborn child (the significant time taken for which would inevitably result in her own death too) as opposed to quickly trying to save her?

 

 

That patently untrue, being pregnant does not preclude any type of medical care being given to a woman.

 

None of these situations demonstrate that an abortion "saved the womans life". Being pregnant is not the threat to her life. Abortion takes life, it doesn't save it.

 

 

In what way would the accidental death of the child, resulting from honesty efforts to save the woman, cause her any greater suffering than the deliberate death of the child from a deliberate abortion?

 

At least in the first instance she could console herself that the death was not intentional.

Can't argue with CS here again, although I'm sure plenty will try.

[Jds192]

 

 

I think it has more to do with the charities that are affected also give advice on family planning, free contraception and womans health. When their funding is cut they cant offer any of their services and advice in some areas and with that abortion in those areas then rise.

 

They are still legal abortions, just paid for by other charities and people.

 

Yeah

 

Same guy jds192 who had a go at me for supporting the snp but would not give an alternative or say which party he supports apparently its a secret (read into that what you will)

 

Its easy to jump in with pish,crap snpbad etc but if he is hiding behind his own views he wont get any reply from me

Same with other trolls

 

You are the troll who is a cliche of the worst SNP voters.

 

None of that has anything to do with this though.

[Jds192]

That's a totally different point though Spammer. Making abortions illegal doesn't increase the number of abortions, limiting birth control probably does though.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that making abortions illegal decreases the number of them and some studies have pointed to fact it increases the number.

[manboobs109]

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that making abortions illegal decreases the number of them and some studies have pointed to fact it increases the number.

What studies? Why would someone who wants an abortion be more likely to have one if they were illegal than legal? You are talking bollocks.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Your opinion is wrong.

 

Making abortions illegal can increase the numbers and has in this case in the past.

 

You supporting that is killing more unborn babies.

Garbage.

 

And I note that we have switched from a very definite statement to a situation of where the number "can increase".

 

The number of abortions is proportionate to the number of the number of unwanted pregnancies, not a function of American funding for foreign abortions.

 

You are arguing that if the USA pays for more abortions to happen, then less abortions happen. D'oh.

 

Think about it, there's a fundamental flaw in that reasoning.

[Jds192]

What studies? Why would someone who wants an abortion be more likely to have one if they were illegal than legal? You are talking bollocks.

 

You are the one talking bollocks I am afraid. Go and read up on it.

[manboobs109]

 

You are the one talking bollocks I am afraid. Go and read up on it.

Just link one of these studies

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I think he is suggesting that driving abortions underground and denying chance increases the uptake of illegal ones.

That is obviously true, but then its completely erroneous to the discussion.

 

We don't make heroin legal, just because it being illegal forces people to buy it illegally.

 

Similar to how all the drink driving which occurs is illegal, because its not legal. No one would use that as an argument to legalise drink driving. They would be laughed out the place.

[Jds192]

Garbage.

 

And I note that we have switched from a very definite statement to a situation of where the number "can increase".

 

The number of abortions is proportionate to the number of the number of unwanted pregnancies, not a function of American funding for foreign abortions.

 

You are arguing that if the USA pays for more abortions to happen, then less abortions happen. D'oh.

 

Think about it, there's a fundamental flaw in that reasoning.

 

Where they take away funding for organisations which provide abortion as an option there is less contraceptive advice. More unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

 

You are supporting that with forcing your pro life stance on other folk.

[manboobs109]

 

Where they take away funding for organisations which provide abortion as an option there is less contraceptive advice. More unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

 

You are supporting that with forcing your pro life stance on other folk.

Unwanted pregnancies happen before abortion you dope. Why would stopping funding for abortions increase pregnancies?

[Jds192]

Unwanted pregnancies happen before abortion you dope. Why would stopping funding for abortions increase pregnancies?

 

Already explained that. Try to keep up.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Bongioanni - Catholic

LeJeune - Catholic Pro-Life campaigner. Very friendly with a couple of Popes as well. Used to visit them regularly.

Gordon - Orthodox Jew, very against contraception and took the hardline view on abortion.

Bowes - Pro-life campaigner.

Source?

 

And is it your genuine opinion that (i) anyone who is religious is a liar and (ii) anyone who values human life is a liar?

 

It is not more likely that you are being an intellectual coward here, by refusing to accept what we know scientifically?

 

Thats not a global scientific consensus of when a human life begins, thats a republican senate committee cherry picking experts to get the political answer they want to produce a bill.

A form of life begins at conception. Life as in a living organism made up of cells. Not a human as a human being or human life is defined.

You are being an intellectual coward here.

 

You simply wont accept the truth because it doesn't suit you.

 

You are better than this - accept the truth.

 

You defined human life as an organism with 46 chromosomes, people with Downs have 48. If part of the definition you are using is that a human has 46 chromosomes, thats what makes the bundle of cells different from cancer, then people with downs are no longer human by that definition.

That is indeed true of human life. As before, downs people have "something wrong with them" it doesn't mean they aren't human.

 

You would agree that humans are bipeds? Does that mean that someone without two legs isnt human? of course not.