Baby lives 45 minutes after legal abortion in UK

44leto

philologos wrote: »

No, it's alive. It's alive because it is a unique biological entity formed of human sperm and ova which grows and develops through to birth, childhood, adolescence and death. As far as I can tell it is dishonest to argue otherwise. Another pro-choice / pro-abortion person has argued on this thread that it is the killing of an unborn child. I respect that honesty even if I disagree with their position. I respect that they didn't feel that they had to lie to argue for their position.

If you find biological reality to be absurd, that is your choice, not mine.

But you anti choice/ pro womens servitude to an unwanted pregnancy, see it that way, it maybe a unique clump of cells but so are all clumps of cells. It may develop to birth adolescence and death, but that certainly is not certain. If that clump of cells is aborted you are only aborting a collection of cells, nothing else.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

The thing is, it's hardly trolling to simply point out that human life begins clearly at conception. You've conceded that it is life, but bizarrely you've stepped back from saying it is human despite the fact that it is precisely human in so far as it is a human embryo. What else is it? What other species?

Actually I stated it was life from the get-go, I've not conceded anything.

A human, by definition, is an organism. A cellular cluster is not an organism. Arguing it is is the equivalent to arguing rock is a liquid.

It is not any species as it has not reached a point that it can be classified as one.

Simply put you are using terms you don't understand.

philologos

Again Seachmall:

Conception, or fertilisation, the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.

As far as I can tell, this is clear denial, and unless you're going to at least concede this, then I'm happy to leave it here with you.

44leto: I am a clump of cells, and so are you. I don't suggest that I should take your life, and I would hope that you wouldn't suggest that you should take mine as a matter of choice.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Again Seachmall:

And a new organism is produced.

But not instantaneously.

A blastocyst is a cell (or a structure of cells). Not an organism.

philologos

Seachmall: I'm happy to leave it here with you. It's beggars belief that you can't see that the human biological material that forms an embryo must be alive in order to grow and develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. How can an inanimate dead object do this?

44leto

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: I'm happy to leave it here with you. It's beggars belief that you can't see that the human biological material that forms an embryo must be alive in order to grow and develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. How can an inanimate dead object do this?

It beggars belief that you can't see that is not a certainty.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

It beggars belief that you can't see that is not a certainty.

Life is a biological concept. It's not an "opinion".

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: I'm happy to leave it here with you. It's beggars belief that you can't see that the human biological material that forms an embryo must be alive in order to grow and develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death.

Once again: I never claimed it wasn't alive and I never claimed it wasn't composed of human biological material.

I correctly claimed it does not qualify to meet the definition of an organism or, in turn, a human.

If you want to leave it there I'm happy to but please don't be so condescending.

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

If you want to leave it there I'm happy to but please don't be so condescending.

My intention isn't to be condescending. I have a lot of respect for you, but on this issue you're really not using logic. In fact you're probably one of the posters on boards.ie I respect the most, but on this issue you're letting your usual standards down.

As for the term organism. It's not true human life must have organs. Your point is based on development now, rather than what is or what is not a human life. I could by similar logic, declare that a three year old is not alive, because it can't juggle 752 pears, while playing the trombone whilst riding a unicycle. That's arbitrary, and certainly isn't fact.

The reason I'm leaving it there is because it's better to end somewhere rather than go around in circles.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall wrote: »

If you want to leave it there I'm happy to but please don't be so condescending.

My intention isn't to be condescending. I have a lot of respect for you, but on this issue you're really not using logic. In fact you're probably one of the posters on boards.ie I respect the most, but on this issue you're letting your usual standards down.

As for the term organism. It's not true human life must have organs. Your point is based on development now, rather than what is or what is not a human life.

The reason I'm leaving it there is because it's better to end somewhere rather than go around in circles.

Just because they dont agree with you ?

Stark

philologos wrote: »

As for the term organism. It's not true human life must have organs. Your point is based on development now, rather than what is or what is not a human life. I could by similar logic, declare that a three year old is not alive, because it can't juggle 752 pears, while playing the trombone whilst riding a unicycle. That's arbitrary, and certainly isn't fact.

Using your logic, you could argue that sperm has the potential to become human life and therefore it's wrong to masturbate as you're spilling the seed. Oh wait, people have...

Your logic is wrong because we know that a 3 year old child has thoughts and feelings whereas we know that a single cell or small grouping of cells doesn't.

philologos wrote:

What is manifest is that the embryo is a life. Dead things don't grow, dead things don't develop in the same way as an embryo does.

Plants grow. Are you aghast at the thought of eating vegetables? My skin grows. My testes produce sperm which are alive and swim and have all the potential to produce a brand new human being. What makes all these cells so different to a zygote other the romantic notion that the zygote was given a special destiny the day Mr. Sperm happened to meet with Mrs. Ova?

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

One can say it's a template, but honestly that's disingenuous. I find the whole pro-choice approach to this argument to be dishonest.

Did you ever come to a conclusion on whether the contraceptive pill should be illegal?

philologos

Stark: My point isn't about "potential". It's that people are saying that because life A is not as developed as I would expect, therefore it is acceptable to kill it. A can be shifted up or down the spectrum as one pleases as it is based on an arbitrary standard such as juggling 824 oranges, while playing a harpsichord on a bicycle. That's what your argument is. I'm saying that irrespective, that is a human life.

Your point about plants is silly if you think about it. I'm not referring to plant life, I'm referring to human life. I think human life is worth protecting, and sparing. I believe that it is a denial of human rights. I couldn't give a fiddles about plant life. Plants are here for our consumption. In terms of human empathy, it is reasonable to respect other human life. Indeed, because we've received the liberties we have, it's fundamentally wrong to deny them to someone else. In a secular way, we could say, it's because we're all in this life thing together. As I would see it, it's because we've been all created in God's sight, He gives life, and He takes it away. It's not my authority to do so.

Your point about sperm and ova as individual isn't quite right, because the sperm and ova in and of themselves do not grow and develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. So that isn't the logical conclusion of anything, it has nothing to do with the life question at all.

drkpower: It functions as an abortifacient. So I disagree with its usage. It also can cause health difficulties for women, that's another reason to reconsider its usage.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

drkpower: It functions as an abortifacient. So I disagree with its usage. It also can cause health difficulties for women, that's another reason to reconsider its usage.

Disagree with its usage? You would go a little further with murder, infanticide and 'traditional' abortion, wouldnt you? You would favour them being illegal and those who commit them criminalised, yes?

As the contraceptive pill is responsible for killing human lives you believe to be equal to, and deserving of as much rights as yourself, or an infant, or a 20 week old foetus, how would you, in law, deal with their destruction?:

Would you make the use of the contraceptive pill illegal?
Would you criminalise those who continue to use it?

Stark

philologos wrote: »

Your point about sperm and ova as individual isn't quite right, because the sperm and ova in and of themselves do not grow and develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. So that isn't the logical conclusion of anything, it has nothing to do with the life question at all.

But for years, contraception was illegal in Ireland on the instruction of the Church because it disrupted "the natural process". But it seems "God" has since changed his tune, funny that. (except in Africa, he still doesn't like people disrupting the natural process in Africa).

philologos wrote: »

Stark: My point isn't about "potential". It's that people are saying that because life A is not as developed as I would expect, therefore it is acceptable to kill it. A can be shifted up or down the spectrum as one pleases as it is based on an arbitrary standard such as juggling 824 oranges, while playing a harpsichord on a bicycle. That's what your argument is. I'm saying that irrespective, that is a human life.

Well your point was about potential because if it wasn't, you would consider it murder to kill any cell in a human body. You're picking an entirely different argument. No-one would claim that a severely mentally handicapped child for instance has no right to life. It may not be developmentally advanced but it does have a brain and the thoughts and feelings that go with it. We're arguing on the scale of bacteria here, whether individual cells have the right to life. Humans are not single celled organisms defined purely by DNA, they're complex emergent systems. Just because you inject human DNA into a cell doesn't mean it's a human life. At the very least, humans have brains, which host thoughts and feelings that make us different from plants.

At some point, maybe in that too distant future, we'll be able to take the DNA from any cell in a human body and create a new life from it. What do we do then, do we let each one realise its potential by growing it into a human being, or do we acknowledge that DNA itself is just the template for human life and we're under no obligation to allow actual life to be created from it? I'm sure I'll get a "Oh but God doesn't have divine plans for those cells" stock replies. Of course, you'll probably expand on that by saying that you have to purposefully take a non-zygote cell and implant it whereas the zygote ends up implanted thanks to fortuitous circumstances that it happened to be there and was able to fall into the uterus wall "naturally". But if we only allowed everything to happen "naturally", then we would be robbing everyone of their human rights as disease and death would be allowed to happen "naturally".

philogos wrote: »

Your point about plants is silly if you think about it. I'm not referring to plant life, I'm referring to human life. I think human life is worth protecting, and sparing. I believe that it is a denial of human rights. I couldn't give a fiddles about plant life. Plants are here for our consumption. In terms of human empathy, it is reasonable to respect other human life. Indeed, because we've received the liberties we have, it's fundamentally wrong to deny them to someone else. In a secular way, we could say, it's because we're all in this life thing together.

Plants are far more advanced than single celled and undifferienated multi-celled organisms. Therefore it's reasonable to afford them rights if you're affording single celled organisms rights.

philogos wrote: »

As I would see it, it's because we've been all created in God's sight, He gives life, and He takes it away. It's not my authority to do so.

Most people would expect a better debate than "It is because my god said it is, end of story".

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

As I would see it, it's because we've been all created in God's sight, He gives life, and He takes it away. It's not my authority to do so.

Who's to say a woman getting an abortion isn't acting in God's Will?

He works in mysterious ways y'know.

prinz

I'll just leave this here as an interesting piece..

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/killing-of-newborn-babies-is-acceptable-say-doctors-3036581.html

We've come along way since the Nazis alright. Take eugenics/pure race farce ideology/and a dash of fascism.... call it 'liberal' and hey presto we're suddenly progressive and happy-clappy.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

Take eugenics/pure race farce ideology/and a dash of fascism.... call it 'liberal' and hey presto we're suddenly progressive and happy-clappy.

"They did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others, but that morally they were no different from abortion as already practised."

It's an old and valid argument. You can't invoke Godwin's law simply because someone raised a discussion of something with valid supporting arguments.

I haven't read this article but I have seen arguments like this and they're typically sound, i.e. a newborn and foetus are too similar that you can't argue the killing of one without inadvertently arguing in favour of the killing of the other.

44leto

This debate reminds me of the old atheist/religious argument, the atheists have won but every now and again you come across a religious person and you just dismiss them with a pat on the head and think them a weird crank. The moral position is pro choice, the anti choicers to me seem like the old religious nuts and always men.

Abortion is simple if you don't want to have one, don't, but don't deny that choice to others that can.

I always wonder what position these male anti-choicers would take if by some freak of nature men were the ones to carry the pregnancy instead of women. I would imagine most would reverse their position.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

It's an old and valid argument..

Actually I agree with you, it is.. and it's one of the best arguments against abortion on demand, however when some brings it up from an anti-abortion standpoint they'd be laughed out of town as some sort of nutbag.

Seachmall wrote: »

You can't invoke Godwin's law simply because someone raised a discussion of something with valid supporting arguments...

Er yes I can invoke "Godwin's Law" and I don't give a fúck who thinks that because I have I have lost some internet points or whatever. What they seem to be arguing the ethics of is essentially the Nazi T4 programme, which began as a voluntary scheme under which parents could choose to have their physically and mentally disabled children 'disposed of'. Apparently it was acceptable at the time. No we have doctors arguing it is acceptable again. So why can I not invoke so called Godwin's Law. All I am saying is that they seem to be arguing the same points that we raised decades ago to support the Nazi T4 plan.

Seachmall wrote: »

I haven't read this article but I have seen arguments like this and they're typically sound, i.e. a newborn and foetus are too similar that you can't argue the killing of one without inadvertently arguing in favour of the killing of the other.

They seem to be going on step further and saying that from a medical ethics (at least in their minds) standpoint both should be acceptable and available.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

Actually I agree with you, it is.. and it's one of the best arguments against abortion on demand, however when some brings it up from an anti-abortion standpoint they'd be laughed out of town as some sort of nutbag.



Er yes I can invoke "Godwin's Law" and I don't give a fúck who thinks that because I have I have lost some internet points or whatever. What they seem to be arguing the ethics of is essentially the Nazi T4 programme, which began as a voluntary scheme under which parents could choose to have their physically and mentally disabled children 'disposed of'. Apparently it was acceptable at the time. No we have doctors arguing it is acceptable again. So why can I not invoke so called Godwin's Law. All I am saying is that they seem to be arguing the same points that we raised decades ago to support the Nazi T4 plan.



They seem to be going on step further and saying that from a medical ethics (at least in their minds) standpoint both should be acceptable and available.

From what I gather from that article they are beginning with the legal and moral standpoint that abortion is legal and that in order for those laws and morals to be consistent infanticide must be allowed.

"what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is,"

They did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others, but that morally they were no different from abortion as already practised.

It reads to me as if the paper is more about the moral consistency of abortion extending to infanticide, not whether or not infanticide is moral.

The only thing in the article that suggests to me that they are explicitly arguing in favour of infanticide is the title.

ash23

prinz wrote: »

I'll just leave this here as an interesting piece..

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/killing-of-newborn-babies-is-acceptable-say-doctors-3036581.html

We've come along way since the Nazis alright. Take eugenics/pure race farce ideology/and a dash of fascism.... call it 'liberal' and hey presto we're suddenly progressive and happy-clappy.

Anyone else find it ironic that the authors have recieved death threats?

I always found the extremists who murder the doctors performing abortions, or blow up clinics etc to be a bit odd. Surely being pro-life is being pro-life Not being pro-life of a foetus but quite pro-choice when it comes to who they murder.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

The only thing in the article that suggests to me that they are explicitly arguing in favour of infanticide is the title.

You might be right.

The authors concluded that "what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled".
They also argued that parents should be able to have a baby killed if it turned out to be disabled when born.
They added, as an example, that many cases of Down Syndrome were not identified by pre-natal testing.
"To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care," they wrote.

ash23 wrote: »

Anyone else find it ironic that the authors have recieved death threats? I always found the extremists who murder the doctors performing abortions, or blow up clinics etc to be a bit odd. Surely being pro-life is being pro-life Not being pro-life of a foetus but quite pro-choice when it comes to who they murder.

I'd imagine they see themselves as acting in a form of self-defence/ greater good. Save the lives of 100's by taking 1 so to speak. Like killing a gunman running amok. I'd rather spend the rest of my days having killed one person for the right reasons, than ten people for the wrong reasons... and no that's not me saying I'd go kill an abortionist or anyone else associated with abortions for that matter before someone twists my words. All I am saying is I can see the thought process behind it.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

You might be right.

should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is

Once again: addressing the moral consistency of abortion, not the morals of infanticide.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

They seem to be going on step further and saying that from a medical ethics (at least in their minds) standpoint both should be acceptable and available.

It is a deeply flawed piece; the primary justification for abortion (in the sense of the primary justification that states have used to legalise abortion) is based on the conflict of rights.

This opinion piece barely mentions the mother; it certainly doesnt mention those of her rights which justify abortion (in the eyes of most/all states that have legalised it).

I'll say one thing for it though; it is essential reading for those on both sides of the debate who think about this issue has being only about the foetus; whether it is 'alive'; 'human'; 'a person'; it does take that type of analysis to one of its logical conclusions.

But for anyone who looks at this issue with any thought or seriousness, its a pointless piece.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

It is a deeply flawed piece; the primary justification for abortion (in the sense of the primary justification that states have used to legalise abortion) is based on the conflict of rights.
This opinion piece barely mentions the mother; it certainly doesnt mention those of her rights which justify abortion (in the eyes of most/all states that have legalised it). .

It seems to focus on post-birth abortion or however the described it though, not on abortion itself, so are you saying in an argument for or against infanticide, the rights of the mother should take precendence still?

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

Once again: addressing the moral consistency of abortion, not the morals of infanticide.

... but they are claiming both should be treated the same way, I don't know why you keep trying to draw a distinction seeing as how the authors are trying their best to have abortion and infanticide effectively converge. It's not a piece on the morality or ethicality of abortion. I understand where you are coming from in how they are highlighting how if X is legal and moral and ethical, there is no major reason why Y shouldn't be, it's just disturbing to me that people could read this and actually agree that infanticide should be legal and available.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

... but they are claiming both should be treated the same way, I don't know why you keep trying to draw a distinction seeing as how the authors are trying their best to have abortion and infanticide effectively converge.

That is exactly their point as I see it. That, in essence, abortion and infanticide are morally synonymous.

Now if you take that in England, where this paper was published, abortion is legal (and you could assume perceived as morally acceptable) they are arguing that in order for that law to be consistent it would need to extend to infanticide.

That's, from what I can tell, is what the paper is about. Not saying that one or the other should be legalised but that given abortion is legal it logically and morally follows that infanticide should also be legal.

The article reads as if they're advocating both, but they could simply be raising the issue (which needs to be raised) in a medical journal about ethics (which is where it should be raised).

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

The article reads as if they're advocating both, but they could simply be raising the issue (which needs to be raised) in a medical journal about ethics (which is where it should be raised).

I'd imagine that's the case, and I hope they go ahead and pubish an article arguing the opposite way. However I don't think it is an issue which needs to be raised, as I mentioned earlier the ethics etc of infanticide and murder based on disability, and the so-called 'burden on society' of the less than perfect have been raised. Decades ago. Raised and put into practice unfortunately. It's stomach churning to me that people (not necessarily the authors of the piece) but others are actually coming around to agreeing with the likes of infanticide and then claim to be progressive or different from the people who put it into action 80 years ago.

prinz

In cases where the end is identical I don't think the means matter too much, especially when means are so closely aligned. When lives are at stake I don't people should be sitting on the sidelines discussing the philosophies of immorality versus amorality... although for some reason reading your last post brought Monty Python's Philosopher's World Cup sketch to mind.:D

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

In cases where the end is identical I don't think the means matter too much, especially when means are so closely aligned. When lives are at stake I don't people should be sitting on the sidelines discussing the philosophies of immorality versus amorality... although for some reason reading your last post brought Monty Python's Philosopher's World Cup sketch to mind.:D

I ended up deleting that post, didn't like it very much :pac:.

But, yeah. I get your point.

philologos

Stark wrote: »

But for years, contraception was illegal in Ireland on the instruction of the Church because it disrupted "the natural process". But it seems "God" has since changed his tune, funny that. (except in Africa, he still doesn't like people disrupting the natural process in Africa).

That was wrong. And God didn't change his tune at all. The Bible doesn't forbid contraception. Also, I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Stark wrote: »

Well your point was about potential because if it wasn't, you would consider it murder to kill any cell in a human body. You're picking an entirely different argument. No-one would claim that a severely mentally handicapped child for instance has no right to life. It may not be developmentally advanced but it does have a brain and the thoughts and feelings that go with it. We're arguing on the scale of bacteria here, whether individual cells have the right to life. Humans are not single celled organisms defined purely by DNA, they're complex emergent systems. Just because you inject human DNA into a cell doesn't mean it's a human life. At the very least, humans have brains, which host thoughts and feelings that make us different from plants.

I know what my point was. It wasn't about potential. The embryo is a human life, there and then. The foetus is a human life there and then.

It's nothing to do with cells either. Simply put, I was the embryo, and so were you when we were much younger. We've grown and developed from that point to birth, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately we'll face death. My point was never about anything "potential". It's about life, right there from conception. Cells, are not biological material formed of human sperm and ova that grow and develop from that point ultimately to death as we all do.

Stark wrote: »

At some point, maybe in that too distant future, we'll be able to take the DNA from any cell in a human body and create a new life from it. What do we do then, do we let each one realise its potential by growing it into a human being, or do we acknowledge that DNA itself is just the template for human life and we're under no obligation to allow actual life to be created from it? I'm sure I'll get a "Oh but God doesn't have divine plans for those cells" stock replies. Of course, you'll probably expand on that by saying that you have to purposefully take a non-zygote cell and implant it whereas the zygote ends up implanted thanks to fortuitous circumstances that it happened to be there and was able to fall into the uterus wall "naturally". But if we only allowed everything to happen "naturally", then we would be robbing everyone of their human rights as disease and death would be allowed to happen "naturally".

I don't see your point? People wouldn't form artificial life only to kill it. DNA is a template for life, but an embryo is far more than mere DNA.

I would also have no issue in the formation of human life from a cell were it a possibility, only I would say that once that life was formed that it should be respected.

Stark wrote: »

Plants are far more advanced than single celled and undifferienated multi-celled organisms. Therefore it's reasonable to afford them rights if you're affording single celled organisms rights.

Again. I couldn't care less about plants. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Plants are not human. I support defending human life, because it is significant, because I defend human liberties.

I support human rights for human life. I treat humans as humans, and animals as animals and plants as plants.

Stark wrote: »

Most people would expect a better debate than "It is because my god said it is, end of story".

Except that isn't what I said is it?

I intended this, to be taken together:

In terms of human empathy, it is reasonable to respect other human life. Indeed, because we've received the liberties we have, it's fundamentally wrong to deny them to someone else. In a secular way, we could say, it's because we're all in this life thing together. As I would see it, it's because we've been all created in God's sight, He gives life, and He takes it away. It's not my authority to do so.

Not torn apart disingenuously. By the by, I won't deny God to anyone, but the interesting thing about this argument is that I can defend it in a secular manner or in a Christian manner.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

But for years, contraception was illegal in Ireland on the instruction of the Church because it disrupted "the natural process". But it seems "God" has since changed his tune, funny that. (except in Africa, he still doesn't like people disrupting the natural process in Africa).

That was wrong. And God didn't change his tune at all. The Bible doesn't forbid contraception. Also, I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Stark wrote: »

Well your point was about potential because if it wasn't, you would consider it murder to kill any cell in a human body. You're picking an entirely different argument. No-one would claim that a severely mentally handicapped child for instance has no right to life. It may not be developmentally advanced but it does have a brain and the thoughts and feelings that go with it. We're arguing on the scale of bacteria here, whether individual cells have the right to life. Humans are not single celled organisms defined purely by DNA, they're complex emergent systems. Just because you inject human DNA into a cell doesn't mean it's a human life. At the very least, humans have brains, which host thoughts and feelings that make us different from plants.

I know what my point was. It wasn't about potential. The embryo is a human life, there and then. The foetus is a human life there and then.

It's nothing to do with cells either. Simply put, I was the embryo, and so were you when we were much younger. We've grown and developed from that point to birth, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately we'll face death. My point was never about anything "potential". It's about life, right there from conception. Cells, are not biological material formed of human sperm and ova that grow and develop from that point ultimately to death as we all do.

Stark wrote: »

At some point, maybe in that too distant future, we'll be able to take the DNA from any cell in a human body and create a new life from it. What do we do then, do we let each one realise its potential by growing it into a human being, or do we acknowledge that DNA itself is just the template for human life and we're under no obligation to allow actual life to be created from it? I'm sure I'll get a "Oh but God doesn't have divine plans for those cells" stock replies.

Not torn apart disingenuously. By the by, I won't deny God to anyone, but the interesting thing about this argument is that I can defend it in a secular manner or in a Christian manner.

Well to be fair not really as the secular side would disagree with your definition of when life begins.

philologos

Jon Ancient Nature: I know atheists who are pro-life. Indeed, I know people from many different perspectives who are pro-life. When life begins is a biological fact. When people want to value human life is an opinion.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature: I know atheists who are pro-life. Indeed, I know people from many different perspectives who are pro-life. When life begins is a biological fact. When people want to value human life is an opinion.

so do i but again some would argue that when life begins is a biological fact not an opnion . Many have done so on this thread in fairness.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature: I know atheists who are pro-life. Indeed, I know people from many different perspectives who are pro-life. When life begins is a biological fact. When people want to value human life is an opinion.

Pro-life?? not really pro the mothers life as in their freedom. Your position is more anti choice.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

Pro-life?? not really pro the mothers life as in their freedom. Your position is more anti choice.

I'm pro-life in the fullest sense. I support protecting life, and I also support standing by mothers without compromising the human rights of the child. That's called a compromise. The alternative is to ignore and steamroll over the rights of the child, which is profoundly wrong.

Ickle Magoo

It's not a compromise for a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - your suggestion for her completely steam-rolls her rights and places the right of the foetus to live over her right to chose what happens with her body...

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

It seems to focus on post-birth abortion or however the described it though, not on abortion itself, so are you saying in an argument for or against infanticide, the rights of the mother should take precendence still?

No.

philologos

Ickle Magoo: The problem is in the authority to decide what happens to the child's life. If one could take the child out and allow them to develop elsewhere, I'd be all for it. Since it involves death, I simply can't and never will support a barbaric procedure like abortion as a matter of choice. The only situation where I would support it would be in medical emergencies where it was a matter of saving a life rather than losing two.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

I'm pro-life in the fullest sense. I support protecting life, and I also support standing by mothers without compromising the human rights of the child. That's called a compromise. The alternative is to ignore and steamroll over the rights of the child, which is profoundly wrong.

But you are not standing over a woman's right to say what she can do with her body. So you are infringing her freedom, what you would like to see is legal servitude. That position is hardly pro-life.

You are opposed to their free choice and control of their bodies, your position is anti abortion, or anti choice, not pro life.

I maybe arguing semantics but that term always bugged me, it is more a position for people who oppose abortions and in my experience that is usually men, its more pro their life. They get to oppose something that they will never be in a position to choose. They will never have an abortion. So they can sit peacefully on a moral high ground.

But I ask, a thought experiment, what if men were to become pregnant instead of women what would their position be then. If that was the case, I myself probably would never have an abortion but that is my choice, I respect people who would choose otherwise. I think the choice should be there.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: The problem is in the authority to decide what happens to the child's life. If one could take the child out and allow them to develop elsewhere, I'd be all for it. Since it involves death, I simply can't and never will support a barbaric procedure like abortion as a matter of choice. The only situation where I would support it would be in medical emergencies where it was a matter of saving a life rather than losing two.

That doesn't change the fact that what you claim is a compromise - is in fact just purely your wishes for the right to life to superceed the rights of women to maintain bodily integrity and authority.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I respect that honesty even if I disagree with their position.

Did you ever come to a conclusion on whether the contraceptive pill should be illegal?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: The problem is in the authority to decide what happens to the child's life. If one could take the child out and allow them to develop elsewhere, I'd be all for it. Since it involves death, I simply can't and never will support a barbaric procedure like abortion as a matter of choice. The only situation where I would support it would be in medical emergencies where it was a matter of saving a life rather than losing two.

Again i have a problem with this . As I have previously stated many woman have chosen to end their lives and the lives of their unborn children when denied an abortion . what do you propose in this case?

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Did you ever come to a conclusion on whether the contraceptive pill should be illegal?

I've answered this already. As an ideal, I wouldn't be supportive of abortifacients being available at all. I'm pro-contraception as a means of preventing conception, but when it comes to destroying life, I'm not a fan of that.

I'm not going to comment on the legality in Ireland, because that's for people in Ireland to decide. I'm an advocate for pro-life, but if society is going to choose this particular approach to sexual ethics, then it is inevitable that abortifacients of any form would be legal here.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I've answered this already. As an ideal, I wouldn't be supportive of abortifacients being available at all. I'm pro-contraception as a means of preventing conception, but when it comes to destroying life, I'm not a fan of that.

I'm not going to comment on the legality in Ireland, because that's for people in Ireland to decide. I'm an advocate for pro-life, but if society is going to choose this particular approach to sexual ethics, then it is inevitable that abortifacients of any form would be legal here.

You are comfortable with commenting on the legality of abortion in Ireland. So why the reluctance to be honest about your position on the oral contraceptive?

As the contraceptive pill is responsible for killing human lives you believe to be equal to, and deserving of as much rights as yourself, or an infant, or a 20 week old foetus, how would you, in law, deal with their destruction?:

Would you make the use of the contraceptive pill illegal?
Would you criminalise those who continue to use it?

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

how does "preventing ovulation" = "killing lives"???

It's the preventing implantation part that is problematic.

drkpower: I've answered that in my previous post fully. I would prefer if anything that functions to destroy life wasn't available, but ultimately the world has taken its direction to shove the real problem under the carpet. I can only offer my opinion as to what the truth is. I'm posting here about the ethics of abortion, not about legality for the most part. I think abortion will be legal in Ireland in the next decade. It doesn't mean that it is right.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Since it involves death, I simply can't and never will support a barbaric procedure like abortion as a matter of choice.

Your emotive terminology also negates to acknowledge that opinions are not only divided on whether abortion should be procured at all but also at what stage. Do you consider women like myself who use a IUD to be barbaric? Do you think all the women who use the pill or other contraceptives that make the womb hostile to implantation are barbaric? It's just an arbitrary hop and a jump to those who use the MAP, an OTC abortifacient, and early stage abortion.

At what stage does your personal beliefs get to encroach on what others can/should/have to do with their own bodies? If you think you should be able to force me to carry a pregnancy I don't want to term and all the risks and life-long repercussions to that, surely I should be able to force you to give blood, or marrow, or a kidney if it means it will save my or someone else's life?

philologos

I think that abortion in any form is a barbaric denial to life. Your beliefs are encroaching on 50 million lives a year by the by. My beliefs, in so far as British society is concerned aren't encroaching on anything.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

I think that abortion in any form is a barbaric denial to life. Your beliefs are encroaching on 50 million lives a year by the by. My beliefs, in so far as British society is concerned aren't encroaching on anything.

You didn't answer my questions...

We're in Ireland - and you are making claims about what women should or should not be "allowed" to do with their own bodies...on an issue that Ireland has exported to the UK en masse for many years now, so some can hypocritically claim moral supremacy.