Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

People might argue on the six week figure and come out with a shorter less clumsy scientific term to describe what youre referring to but otherwise yeah sounds reasonable enough.

They may argue about it but +/- 1 week doesn't really make all that much of a difference relative to the average lifespan of a human being.

Just to be clear we are referring to cells in the plural as this kinds contradicts your earlier assertion ?

Zygotes begin to divide within 24 hours of fertilisation. In any case, I should have said "Cellular" instead of "Composed of cells" so as to include unicellular organisms which are obviously just as alive as multicellular organisms. So no, we're not just talking about cells in the plural.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Simple enough...

All life is

• Composed of cells
• Structurally organised
• Capable of respiration and metabolism
• Capable of self-regulation... Homeostasis.
• Capable of cell growth and reproduction.

A human embryo meets all the above criteria as do fully developed humans.

As does a carrot.

partyatmygaff

true-or-false wrote: »

As does a carrot.

As does the world's smallest microorganism.

Your point?

dsmythy

Gyalist wrote: »

In reply to Lemmewinks

Why do conservatives care so much for the unborn and so little after they are born?

smokedeels wrote: »

Women being in control of their bodies seems like a basic belief for a "liberal" to me.

The conservative "we'll fight for you until your born, then you're on your own" approach is the confusing one.

Not that confusing folks. Conservatives being likely law and order types will want to prevent your innocent life being ended by someone else after birth too.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your point?

My point being that you want to protect foetuses because you see them as having life. But if a carrot also adheres to your definition of life, then you should be just as protective of carrots as you are of foetuses. And if micro-organisms adhere to it too, you shouldn't wash your hands because you're killing living things.

Mark200

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As far as i'm concerned a zygote is a human life. A viable human life it may not always be but it's still a human life.

So I assume you're opposed to the morning after pill, then? Since it often stops the zygote from being implanted in the womb?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As does the world's smallest microorganism.

Your point?

I would have thought his point was blatantly obvious.

philologos

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I hear lots of things.

Where did you hear this magical number?

The Telegraph - 17th May 2008

These included 65 women who had their sixth abortion by the age of 30, and 82 girls aged under 18 who had already experienced three, and more than 50 women who had had eight abortions or more.

K-9 wrote: »

What statistics are you basing that on?

Always thought we could give better care and options by having it here myself.

The Guardian figures for Wales in 2010 - 8,632.
Figures for Irish women in 2010 - 4,402
In 2009 it was 4,422.

Population of Ireland - 4,581,269 (2011 census)
Population of Wales - 3,006,400 (2010 mid-year estimate)

Wales actually has a smaller population, yet double the abortion rate. Wales is also considerably lower than England per thousand.

I hope these figures satisfy your questions.

Eric Cartman: Comparing a tumour to a human life is woeful logic.

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

Eric Cartman: Comparing a tumour to a human life is woeful logic.

*facepalm* please enlighten me as to exactly what the difference between a tumor and a 10 week foetus is ? as far as i can see they are both just human cells with blood vessels in them and no distinct function aside from that.

A foetus doesnt become a lifeform until the brain starts functioning which isnt till week 28 or something , Up to UK rules (maximum week 12 abortion) then its just a pile of cells, not a human life, not a baby , not anything more than effectivley a tumor inside the womb

philologos

The difference is that the foetus is the exact same life form that will grow to birth, childhood, adolescence, and death. It is the same life. The life I live now, was the same life I lived while developing in the womb. It is the same continuous life.

A tumour isn't. That's pretty clear to understand I would have thought.

Mickeroo

I don't think it has to be pointed out that abortions received by Irish women would increase in ireland if they were made legal. Thats just common sense.

Wales is also not a predominantly catholic population either, a catholic population is less likely to opt for abortion than a non-catholic one.

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

The difference is that the foetus is the exact same life form that will grow to birth, childhood, adolescence, and death. It is the same life. The life I live now, was the same life I lived while developing in the womb. It is the same continuous life.

A tumour isn't. That's pretty clear to understand I would have thought.

but without a heart , a brain, bones or any other organs developped let alone working how can it be classed as a life ? , if a life is just classed by cells and blood vessels then technically the tumor is a life ,

if your referring to some sort of life of a 'soul' or 'a spiritual life' then im sorry but thats retarded

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Imho until there's a functioning brain & nervous system I don't think it can be classed as a human life. Once a certain stage of development is reached i think it is ethically wrong to abort, before that it's fair enough as far as I can see....

Imho unless there is a functioning ability to juggle 507 bananas on a unicycle while playing the trombone, I don't think it can be classed as a human life. Once a certain stage of development has been reached, I think it is ethically wrong to abort, before that it's fair enough as far as I can see....

Eric Cartman - It is a biologically independent entity that grows (to grow it must be alive) towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death like we all do. I don't see a reason to deny that that is a continuous life as you seem to.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Imho unless there is a functioning ability to juggle 507 bananas on a unicycle while playing the trombone, I don't think it can be classed as a human life.

Oh yea you're right, thats exactly the same thing. You sure showed me.

philologos

Mickeroo: Don't you get where I'm coming from?

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

Imho unless there is a functioning ability to juggle 507 bananas on a unicycle while playing the trombone, I don't think it can be classed as a human life. Once a certain stage of development has been reached, I think it is ethically wrong to abort, before that it's fair enough as far as I can see....

defenition of a human from wikipedia

Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience,[7][8][9] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".[10][11]

Humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. With individuals widespread in every continent except Antarctica, humans are a cosmopolitan species. As of November 2011[update], the human population was estimated by the United Nations Population Division to be about 7 billion,[12] and by the United States Census Bureau to be about 6.97 billion.[13]

Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology, and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, create art, and use numerous other technologies. The study of humans is the scientific discipline of anthropology.

a 12 week foetus lacks the ability for anything in bold , therefore its not a human

Ellis Dee

Jaysus, Ireland really has done very well in two out of three phases of human existence. Our Constitution gives nearly total protection to the unborn, and the dead are out of it and need nothing any more.;);)

Now all we need to do is get our act together a bit better as a nation and start showing a little more concern for the born-and-not-yet-dead. In that respect, we still have a fair bit of fine-tuning to do.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

philologos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

defenition of a human from wikipedia


a 12 week foetus lacks the ability for anything in bold , therefore its not a human

Essentially all that's saying is that because a foetus is so young, and so undeveloped that it isn't a human life. That's no different to finding some other arbitrary standard for saying that you're not alive - say that one doesn't have 5 phD's by the age of 4. As a result I could justify killing that person on that standard.

Why is death justified? - It is because I don't believe that killing the unborn is justified that I will never be pro-abortion-by-choice.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Mickeroo: Don't you get where I'm coming from?

In terms of empathy yes I do, but the ability to juggle 507 bananas on a unicycle while playing the trombone, were it not in all probability physically impossible would take a lifetime of experience and practice where as a fuctioning brain and nervous system(or internal organs of any kind for that matter) are basic prequisites before any of that could be achieved.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

The Telegraph - 17th May 2008




The Guardian figures for Wales in 2010 - 8,632.
Figures for Irish women in 2010 - 4,402
In 2009 it was 4,422.

Population of Ireland - 4,581,269 (2011 census)
Population of Wales - 3,006,400 (2010 mid-year estimate)

Wales actually has a smaller population, yet double the abortion rate. Wales is also considerably lower than England per thousand.

I hope these figures satisfy your questions.

Eric Cartman: Comparing a tumour to a human life is woeful logic.

That wouldn't take account of Irish women not giving Irish addresses or women going to other European countries like Holland, probably another couple of thousand there.

philologos

Why is your belief any more justified Mickeroo?

K-9 wrote: »

That wouldn't take account of Irish women not giving Irish addresses or women going to other European countries like Holland, probably another couple of hundred.

If you can provide a better figure then I'm all ears. But I certainly doubt that it accounts for any more than 8,600 even at a stretch. I've substantiated my figures on the best we have.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Why is your belief any more justified Mickeroo?

The belief you put forward implies it is morally acceptable to end the life of a self-aware human where as mine does not.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

Why is your belief any more justified Mickeroo?



If you can provide a better figure then I'm all ears. But I certainly doubt that it accounts for any more than 8,600 even at a stretch. I've substantiated my figures on the best we have.

I'd be all ears myself! Getting an accurate figure on women who don't want to be identified is rather difficult.

Still, your argument seems to be we've less than Wales so that makes the current situation okay.

My initial point was having it here with proper records from Irish authorities, counseling and more options could drop the numbers.

philologos

Less than Wales and declining figures as far as I see it is good. It is good from the perspective of more children living as I had the liberty to.

partyatmygaff

Eric Cartman wrote: »

*facepalm* please enlighten me as to exactly what the difference between a tumor and a 10 week foetus is ? as far as i can see they are both just human cells with blood vessels in them and no distinct function aside from that.

A foetus doesnt become a lifeform until the brain starts functioning which isnt till week 28 or something , Up to UK rules (maximum week 12 abortion) then its just a pile of cells, not a human life, not a baby , not anything more than effectivley a tumor inside the womb

1. A tumour is a malignant group of a person's own cells which have somehow developed a fault causing them to ceaselessly reproduce. A ten week old foetus is a disparate human individual (A group of cells that comes in varying sizes if you will) with a completely different genome to its mother. The mere fact that you said something like "They are both just human cells with blood vessels in them" shows how little knowledge you actually have about the human body.

2. A zygote/blastocyst/foetus/embryo/e.t.c. is without a doubt a life form. A completely different life form to its mother at that.

As for a foetus being "just a pile of cells". Newsflash buddy, you're just a pile of cells too. Biologically speaking, all humans are "just a pile of cells". That doesn't mean we can kill other humans on a whim and say "Ah yeah sure, he was just a pile of cells. What's the problem?".

Please read even the most basic of biology textbooks, it'll do you a world of good.


As an aside, some people seem to be getting me wrong. I'm not completely against abortion. In some cases, it's the only right thing to do. For example, when there's danger to the mother's life (Either psychological or physical) or when the child is unlikely to survive (Anencephaly for example). It's still killing but killing is sometimes necessary for the greater good. It wouldn't make sense for example to cause the certain death of an otherwise healthy mother just on the off chance that the child they're carrying is born healthy. Neither would it make sense to allow a child with a fatal birth defect to carry to term. That's just cruelty towards both the parents and the child. It would be great if none of this was necessary and we had the technology and knowledge to correct birth defects but we don't (Yet). The only thing i'm against is elective abortion where the parents (Or just the mother) decide to get an abortion for petty/selfish reasons of convenience or simply not wanting a child. I could never agree with something like that.

partyatmygaff

Eric Cartman wrote: »

defenition of a human from wikipedia


a 12 week foetus lacks the ability for anything in bold , therefore its not a human

Some child/adult humans lack those characteristics as well. Can they be killed too seeing as they're not human?

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

The belief you put forward implies it is morally acceptable to end the life of a self-aware human where as mine does not.

Your argument is essentially saying that because a foetus is younger and less developed that it is acceptable to kill it. It depends on where you put the line of development.

It's much easier to say that life is important to us and as a result we aim to protect it. The real choice can be decided before this even begins. That's why I say I'm pro-choice until the point where it comes to taking innocent life.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Your argument is essentially saying that because a foetus is younger and less developed that it is acceptable to kill it. It depends on where you put the line of development.

Not less developed, undeveloped. I put the line of development at the point it achieves conciousness.

Just to be clear, though I am obviously pro-choice I also personally think there should be a very good reason for an abortion to be carried out, having said that its none of my business what someone decides to do with their own body.

philologos

I don't see anything wrong with the law protecting human rights, that includes in the case of the liberty to life. That's where I would stand on it.

B_Fanatic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

1. A tumour is a malignant group of a person's own cells which have somehow developed a fault causing them to ceaselessly reproduce. A ten week old foetus is a disparate human individual (A group of cells that comes in varying sizes if you will) with a completely different genome to its mother. The mere fact that you said something like "They are both just human cells with blood vessels in them" shows how little knowledge you actually have about the human body.

2. A zygote/blastocyst/foetus/embryo/e.t.c. is without a doubt a life form. A completely different life form to its mother at that.

As for a foetus being "just a pile of cells". Newsflash buddy, you're just a pile of cells too. Biologically speaking, all humans are "just a pile of cells". That doesn't mean we can kill other humans on a whim and say "Ah yeah sure, he was just a pile of cells. What's the problem?".

I disagree.

1 + 2. You're arguing that the foetus is a completely different individual. Obviously this is the subject of much controversy and very much debatable. I believe a 10 week old foetus is a Human as much as I believe a caterpillar is a butterfly... Which is not a lot.

@The last paragraph above: Bullshíte! That works both ways too. Bacteria, yeast, amoeba etc are just 'a bunch of cells' but that doesn't mean we should thread carefully in case of the devastating circumstance in which we might kill one.

And secondly, you knew exactly what he meant. A ten week old foetus primarily consists of meristematic, undifferentiated cells (stem cells is the synonym I think) which are non sentient whereas humans are a combination of differentiated cells which are very much sentient, and can very much feel pain.

Finally, throwing around this:

A zygote/blastocyst/foetus/embryo/e.t.c

doesn't immediately give you a BS in Biology, so there's no need to be so pretentious and say this:

Please read even the most basic of biology textbooks, it'll do you a world of good.

€10 says I misunderstood something you said and am going to come out looking like an idiot.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

Less than Wales and declining figures as far as I see it is good. It is good from the perspective of more children living as I had the liberty to.

Yeah, but abortion rates have declined in most European countries so it isn't as if our "ban" is the reason for that. Contraception the main reason as seen by the reduction in our own teenage pregnancy rate.

It could be legalised here and a concerted effort made to reduce the numbers even more. I know acknowledging that might be difficult for you.

philologos

K9 - That's good, but personally I won't be fully satisfied until more progress is made in bringing that number closer to 0 as it should be.

Legalisation doesn't bring numbers to 0. Legalisation has brought an exponential increase in the case of Britain since the 60's. The same is true of Europe. Legalisation doesn't lead to a decrease.

Personally, I'll never justify aborting by choice, it just isn't the right thing for me to do.

partyatmygaff

B_Fanatic wrote: »

I disagree.

1 + 2. You're arguing that the foetus is a completely different individual. Obviously this is the subject of much controversy and very much debatable.

No it's not. Only someone who didn't have a clue about biology could try and argue that an embryo and its mother are the same individual.

It's pretty clear cut. I believe a 10 week old foetus is a Human as much as I believe a caterpillar is a butterfly... Which is not a lot.

What you believe and what you do not believe does not matter much when it comes to reality. If what you think aligns with reality, great. If not, well there's nothing that can really be done about that can there?

I struggle to think of what else to call a large grouping of homo sapiens cells other than "Developing human being" aka human foetus.

@The last paragraph above: Bullshíte! That works both ways too. Bacteria, yeast, amoeba etc are just 'a bunch of cells' but that doesn't mean we should thread carefully in case of the devastating circumstance in which we might kill one.

You do realise not all cells are the exact same?

Human cells are different to bacterial cells and so on. Killing a bunch of bacterial cells is no big deal. Killing a bunch of human cells on the other hand is a big deal. Especially when killing that bunch of cells will ultimately cause the overall death of a human individual.

And secondly, you knew exactly what he meant. A ten week old foetus primarily consists of meristematic, undifferentiated cells (stem cells is the synonym I think) which are non sentient whereas humans are a combination of differentiated cells which are very much sentient, and can very much feel pain.

Relatively speaking, a considerably minute portion of the average human individual's life is spent as undifferentiated cells. I find it completely unreasonable to suggest that just because you weren't sentient and couldn't feel pain for the first x few weeks of your life you weren't human for that period.

Mark200

partyatmygaff wrote: »

2. A zygote/blastocyst/foetus/embryo/e.t.c. is without a doubt a life form. A completely different life form to its mother at that.

Do you consider the morning after pill to be the same as abortion?

Logical Fallacy

philologos wrote: »

Personally, I'll never justify aborting by choice, it just isn't the right thing for me to do.

The thing is, as was the original point of the thread, it's possibly to think that but still be Pro-Choice, as your only moral shackle is what you do yourself.

It's the concept a lot of people can't wrap their head around, someone might be against abortion in their own personal circumstances but still support other people right to choose for themselves.

philologos

If you claim to be pro-abortion-by-choice, you are claiming that there is a justification for taking life. If there isn't one, then there would be no reason for being pro-abortion-by-choice.

Simply put: I'll never advocate it because I feel it's fundamentally wrong.

partyatmygaff

Mark200 wrote: »

Do you consider the morning after pill to be the same as abortion?

It's a bit of a grey area. It's difficult to really give an opinion one way or the other.

Preventing implantation couldn't really be considered abortion as a "free" zygote isn't all that viable. In any case, many zygotes (Perhaps even the majority) don't successfully implant anyway.

However, killing a zygote post-implantation would obviously be considered abortion as an implanted zygote has a much greater chance at survival and development than a "free" zygote.

Again, it's not clear cut. I can't say either way.

B_Fanatic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No it's not. Only someone who didn't have a clue about biology could try and argue that an embryo and its mother are the same individual.

I'll concede defeat on this one (However I do not regret saying it is the subject of great controversy. Because it is. But I will admit it shouldn't be as there is no ambiguity) simply because a quick google highlighted a fairly obvious point I hadn't thought of myself; the foetus consists of genetic material from both the father and the mother. HOWEVER, that does not make the foetus a different individual. I already explain this below with the human - homosapien argument, refer to that. Only with the word individual. There's more meaning and depth to it than one homosapien.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What you believe and what you do not believe does not matter much when it comes to reality. If what you think aligns with reality, great. If not, well there's nothing that can really be done about that can there?

Are you honestly picking at the verb I used?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I struggle to think of what else to call a large grouping of homo sapiens cells other than "Developing human being" aka human foetus.

First of all Homosapien and Human mean different things. Obviously if you pull out a dictionary they will be very similar but in actuality, society uses the word Human at a much deeper level. That is why if someone asks "What is it to be human" you don't respond with "You must have the same genetic structure as the homosapien species." And that's where you hit the nail on the head: "Developing Human being." The adjective "developing" is very important here, as a developing human being is a hell of a lot different from a standard human being.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You do realise not all cells are the exact same?

Wow. Although your entire post isn't hypocritical, it sure as hell is on a cellular level. You JUST said that the bunch of cells of a foetus are comparable to the bunch of cells of a mother and now you're asking this? Don't you see how these don't add up? Homosapiens cells come in many shapes and forms too and the cellular composition of a foetus is different from that of a developed human.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Relatively speaking, a considerably minute portion of the average human individual's life is spent as undifferentiated cells. I find it completely unreasonable to suggest that just because you weren't sentient and couldn't feel pain for the first x few weeks of your life you weren't human for that period.

This isn't an argument at all. If I don't make it to the sentient stage as a foetus I won't know about it. I, the foetus, will be at as much of a loss as the millions of sperm that died in the race to the egg as they were as sentient as I for all practical purposes.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No it's not. Only someone who didn't have a clue about biology could try and argue that an embryo and its mother are the same individual.

You're really missing the point. Mainly because your posts seem to be primarily concerned with proving you own a biology textbook.

I struggle to think of what else to call a large grouping of homo sapiens cells other than "Developing human being" aka human foetus.

It's already been stated that a tumour is a group of Homo sapiens cells.

Killing a bunch of human cells on the other hand is a big deal.

Not really. If it was, tummy tucks would be a real problem in society.

Relatively speaking, a considerably minute portion of the average human individual's life is spent as undifferentiated cells. I find it completely unreasonable to suggest that just because you weren't sentient and couldn't feel pain for the first x few weeks of your life you weren't human for that period.

Species = human, I'd agree, but status = unborn, not conscious and unable to feel, see, smell, touch, breathe, move.

Logical Fallacy

philologos wrote: »

If you claim to be pro-abortion-by-choice, you are claiming that there is a justification for taking life. If there isn't one, then there would be no reason for being pro-abortion-by-choice.

Simply put: I'll never advocate it because I feel it's fundamentally wrong.

That's grand, i'm not trying to change your mind.

What i'm saying is that you seem to willing to enforce your opinion on everyone else.

Which, no offense to your good religious self...is total bull****.

What if the sudden majority decision was that practicing any kind of faith should be illegal...would you feel that other people were making your decisions for you? I imagine so.

philologos

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

That's grand, i'm not trying to change your mind.

What i'm saying is that you seem to willing to enforce your opinion on everyone else.

Which, no offense to your good religious self...is total bull****.

What if the sudden majority decision was that practicing any kind of faith should be illegal...would you feel that other people were making your decisions for you? I imagine so.

Before I shut off the auld computer, a few points.

What I'm saying is that the law should defend human rights.

Firstly, I wouldn't identify as "religious". I'm a Christian.

Secondly, this isn't imposing Christian belief. It's defending human rights. If I were an atheist or an agnostic I'd hold the exact same opinion on this. Many atheists and agnostics do.

Thirdly, this can be argued on an entirely secular level.

Fourthly, this should be illegal because it violates the liberty, freedom and rights of another human being. It is the taking of life. It's killing. I'm pro-life in the fullest sense of the word.

Fifthly, if anything can be argued to be BS, it certainly isn't the defence of liberty. It is the denial of it. It is not a liberty to impose on the liberty of others, that includes denying someone else the right to life.

Sixthly, as I've said already, I understand that this situation is difficult, but in all reality these are decisions that can be made prior to pregnancy. I'm pro-choice in so far as I support the mothers choice as to whether or not to have a child. I'm pro-life in so far as I think it is wrong to kill an unborn child as a matter of choice.

Mark200

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's a bit of a grey area. It's difficult to really give an opinion one way or the other.

Preventing implantation couldn't really be considered abortion as a "free" zygote isn't all that viable. In any case, many zygotes (Perhaps even the majority) don't successfully implant anyway.

However, killing a zygote post-implantation would obviously be considered abortion as an implanted zygote has a much greater chance at survival and development than a "free" zygote.

Again, it's not clear cut. I can't say either way.

Do you not see how shockingly hypocritical that is?

What happened to your whole idea that a zygote is a life just like the rest of us?

What happened to "Killing a bunch of human cells on the other hand is a big deal. Especially when killing that bunch of cells will ultimately cause the overall death of a human individual."??

And you were complaining earlier about setting an arbitrary milestone for when a zygote becomes a life. You're not doing that now? Why set the milestone at implantation (which you seem to be doing)? When in your previous posts you set the milestone at fertilisation?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As far as i'm concerned a zygote is a human life. A viable human life it may not always be but it's still a human life.

Logical Fallacy

philologos wrote: »

Firstly, I wouldn't identify as "religious". I'm a Christian.

Good for you, Christianity is a religion, i suggest you be less uptight about it.

Secondly, this isn't imposing Christian belief. It's defending human rights. If I were an atheist or an agnostic I'd hold the exact same opinion on this. Many atheists and agnostics do.

I'm not saying it's imposing Christian belief.

Thirdly, this can be argued on an entirely secular level.

So can everything, and it normally makes things follow a far more logical route.

Fourthly, this should be illegal because it violates the liberty, freedom and rights of another human being. It is the taking of life. It's killing. I'm pro-life in the fullest sense of the word.

This is not set in stone though...as clearly places that have legal abortion do not identify the early stage of a fetus as being a human being. As such, in your opinion, it's killing.

Fifthly, if anything can be argued to be BS, it certainly isn't the defence of liberty. It is the denial of it. It is not a liberty to impose on the liberty of others, that includes denying someone else the right to life.

Once again, the law of certain countries doesn't recognize there being another "person" involved until a certain point. Once again, you are just repeating the same thing...when it's not that sample. Something is not a person just because you say it is. A very many doctors, governments and legal bodies would disagree with you.

Sixthly, as I've said already, I understand that this situation is difficult, but in all reality these are decisions that can be made prior to pregnancy. I'm pro-choice in so far as I support the mothers choice as to whether or not to have a child. I'm pro-life in so far as I think it is wrong to kill an unborn child as a matter of choice.

Indeed, but contraception will fail, a woman could fall pregnant due to a rape etc etc. There are a very many circumstances that get pretty gray and once again, that main issue, in your opinion...it's a child.

partyatmygaff

B_Fanatic wrote: »

I'll concede defeat on this one (However I do not regret saying it is the subject of great controversy. Because it is. But I will admit it shouldn't be as there is no ambiguity) simply because a quick google highlighted a fairly obvious point I hadn't thought of myself; the foetus consists of genetic material from both the father and the mother. HOWEVER, that does not make the foetus a different individual. I already explain this below with the human - homosapien argument, refer to that. Only with the word individual. There's more meaning and depth to it than one homosapien.



Are you honestly picking at the verb I used?



First of all Homosapien and Human mean different things.

Do they really? Personally i'd consider them pretty much interchangeable. If it was person and homo sapiens then perhaps you could have a point.

Obviously if you pull out a dictionary they will be very similar but in actuality, society uses the word Human at a much deeper level. That is why if someone asks "What is it to be human" you don't respond with "You must have the same genetic structure as the homosapien species." And that's where you hit the nail on the head: "Developing Human being."

Well, what is it to be human then? Being conscious, rational, self-aware, intelligent e.t.c.? That's certainly true but how exactly do all these traits arise? Your genetic code perhaps?

The adjective "developing" is very important here, as a developing human being is a hell of a lot different from a standard human being.

A child is a developing human being. Just because an individual is not yet fully developed does not mean they aren't properly human.

Wow. Although your entire post isn't hypocritical, it sure as hell is on a cellular level. You JUST said that the bunch of cells of a foetus are comparable to the bunch of cells of a mother and now you're asking this? Don't you see how these don't add up? Homosapiens cells come in many shapes and forms too and the cellular composition of a foetus is different from that of a developed human.

It's not the exact cellular composition that matters but the nature of the cell(s) as an entity. A huge colony of mature E.Coli cells are worthless in comparison to a single miniscule human zygote.

true-or-false wrote: »

You're really missing the point.
Mainly because your posts seem to be primarily concerned with proving you own a biology textbook.

Less of that.

Species = human, I'd agree, but status = unborn, not conscious and unable to feel, see, smell, touch, breathe, move.

So? Just because an individual is unconscious does not mean that their lives should not be protected. Someone in a coma with an unsure prognosis is as sentient as an early foetus. If we do our best to ensure that the human in coma survives, I don't see why it should be any different for a foetus.


Anyway i'm out. I've got a lot of work to do and thorny issue threads like these while interesting take up way too much time and make it all too easier to procrastinate. I've said all that I'd like to say on the topic and foresee a lot of repetition if I stay on in the thread.

B_Fanatic

philologos wrote: »

Before I shut off the auld computer, a few points.

What I'm saying is that the law should defend human rights.

Firstly, I wouldn't identify as "religious". I'm a Christian.

Secondly, this isn't imposing Christian belief. It's defending human rights. If I were an atheist or an agnostic I'd hold the exact same opinion on this. Many atheists and agnostics do.

Thirdly, this can be argued on an entirely secular level.

Fourthly, this should be illegal because it violates the liberty, freedom and rights of another human being. It is the taking of life. It's killing. I'm pro-life in the fullest sense of the word.

Fifthly, if anything can be argued to be BS, it certainly isn't the defence of liberty. It is the denial of it. It is not a liberty to impose on the liberty of others, that includes denying someone else the right to life.

Sixthly, as I've said already, I understand that this situation is difficult, but in all reality these are decisions that can be made prior to pregnancy. I'm pro-choice in so far as I support the mothers choice as to whether or not to have a child. I'm pro-life in so far as I think it is wrong to kill an unborn child as a matter of choice.

And that's what this all boils down to. Is a foetus an individual; a conscious human being. You say you're defending someone else's right to life. Others say it's not a life. That all you're doing is forcing someone to allow one to grow when they're not ready.

And through some basic algebra, christians believe in the existence of the soul. So when does that lcome into play? I know you don't know the answer so it is better to play it safe and pick fertilisation, but personally I don't believe in a soul. And I'm sure many pro-choicers would agree, saying there is no soul. Only a collection of incredibly complex biological computer systems and a little thing called society. Anyway, that is not the topic of this thread, so I'll leave it there.

Looking forward to your reply. Obviously, this post wasn't a challenge or an argument, simply an observation that that particular agument has ran from the realm of abortions into soul territory. Or maybe it hasn't. Maybe you have something to say.

And now we wait.

B_Fanatic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do they really? Personally i'd consider them pretty much interchangeable. If it was person and homo sapiens then perhaps you could have a point.

Not entirely sure what you're saying, you jumped the gun so I'll just respond to the next argument which actually takes why I said that into account.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well, what is it to be human then? Being conscious, rational, self-aware, intelligent e.t.c.? That's certainly true but how exactly do all these traits arise?

I do not know what it is to be human. It is a massively ambiguous meaning and I'm sure every culture has it's own ballpark definition, that's why I brought it up.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your genetic code perhaps?

There's genetic sperm in both gametes before fertilisation? Am I obliged to knock up a girl as soon as I hit puberty simply because the potential was there?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A child is a developing human being. Just because an individual is not yet fully developed does not mean they aren't properly human.

So you're equating a child and a foetus? If you think a foetus holds as much value to life as a child then you're descending into wordplay.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's not the exact cellular composition that matters but the nature of the cell(s) as an entity. A huge colony of mature E.Coli cells are worthless in comparison to a single miniscule human zygote.

No, they do not. Who says so? You? That's completely arbitrary and a bad excuse for an argument.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So? Just because an individual is unconscious does not mean that their lives should not be protected. Someone in a coma with an unsure prognosis is as sentient as an early foetus. If we do our best to ensure that the human in coma survives, I don't see why it should be any different for a foetus.

Because there are more factors than sentience. A person in a coma is already developed and is essentially a dormant tree if ever a thing was to exist whereas a foetus is a seed. The potential to become a tree.

Terry

Sweet motherfúcking Jesus (if he really was the King of the Jews, then he would have fúcked a relative. There is no mention of siblings, Aunts or Uncles, so, as a royal, the only option would have been to fúck his mother); we have a thread here full of men talking about what a woman does with her body.

I'd like to weigh in on this.
Women should not be allowed to vote if they are on the rag. The bible says that they are unclean when they are on the rag, so voting booths should be off limits to them. As should supermarkets, kitchens, bathrooms and anywhere with a roof.

Women who cannot identify the Father (s) of their child (ren) should be treated as Mother's of Gods. Just like Mary.

As a man, it's my duty to prevent women from doing wrong, so all women should call to my house for pregnancy tests every Sunday morning (Short skirts with no knickers and low cut tops are essential).
If I find a pregnant woman, I will inform the government so that they can stop this woman from travelling abroad.
I urge all women to comply. Especially rape victims. They need to suffer the most.

Terry

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Because there are more factors than sentience. A person in a coma is already developed and is essentially a dormant tree if ever a thing was to exist whereas a foetus is a seed. The potential to become a tree.

I want this entered into public domain.
Should I ever become comatose, I urge my next of kin to switch off life support after a month.
I really don't want to become a tree.

A really large tree branch almost landed on me once, and I would not like to be the sort of tree that falls on someone and hurts them.

Trees are great and all. I just don't want to be one. Or a vegetable.

B_Fanatic

Terry wrote: »

I want this entered into public domain.
Should I ever become comatose, I urge my next of kin to switch off life support after a month.
I really don't want to become a tree..

A really large tree branch almost landed on me once, and I would not like to be the sort of tree that falls on someone and hurts them.

Trees are great and all. I just don't want to be one. Or a vegetable.

Yes, I would agree that there is a point where it's safe to assume they aren't coming back. But that wasn't really the point. Let's pretend you were going to wake up after nine months

K-9

philologos wrote: »

K9 - That's good, but personally I won't be fully satisfied until more progress is made in bringing that number closer to 0 as it should be.

All good, similar attitude then.

Legalisation doesn't bring numbers to 0. Legalisation has brought an exponential increase in the case of Britain since the 60's. The same is true of Europe. Legalisation doesn't lead to a decrease.

Again, do you have a source for that. I'm under the impression that most European countries have reduced the abortion rate in recent years. Britain tends to be the exception though I think 09 showed a decrease, 010 a very small increase.

Personally, I'll never justify aborting by choice, it just isn't the right thing for me to do.

Of course. The practical thing is to reduce it as much as possible. Ireland having a reduced rate doesn't mean our laws are working, when more liberal countries also have a reducing rate.

strobe

B_Fanatic wrote: »

And that's what this all boils down to. Is a foetus an individual; a conscious human being. You say you're defending someone else's right to life. Others say it's not a life. That all you're doing is forcing someone to allow one to grow when they're not ready.

And through some basic algebra, christians believe in the existence of the soul. So when does that lcome into play? I know you don't know the answer so it is better to play it safe and pick fertilisation, but personally I don't believe in a soul. And I'm sure many pro-choicers would agree, saying there is no soul. Only a collection of incredibly complex biological computer systems and a little thing called society. Anyway, that is not the topic of this thread, so I'll leave it there.

Looking forward to your reply. Obviously, this post wasn't a challenge or an argument, simply an observation that that particular agument has ran from the realm of abortions into soul territory. Or maybe it hasn't. Maybe you have something to say.

And now we wait.

To be fair, his argument doesn't rely on the existence of a soul in any way, shape or form.

You can make an argument against the holocaust without having to invoke the concept of a soul.

Similarly, as far as I understand, the argument against abortion being put forward by Jakkass and others is "killing innocent humans is wrong, and I consider a foetus to be an innocent human".