Baby lives 45 minutes after legal abortion in UK

philologos

I'm arguing about the ethical nature of people deciding whether or not others should be condemned to death. It's not just about a woman's body.

You say we're in Ireland. I'm not anymore, that's my point.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

I'm arguing about the ethical nature of people deciding whether or not others should be condemned to death. It's not just about a woman's body.

Right - and people die without transplants - let's ensure they don't by getting donors by force...life is sacred after all, to hell with the bodily rights of others.

philologos wrote: »

You say we're in Ireland. I'm not anymore, that's my point.

But from whatever location you are at you presume to suggest that women should not be given the same bodily rights afforded under all other circumstances.

philologos

As for organ donation, I think that would be something that should be widely encouraged, and I would endorse saving as many lives as possible. Condemning humans to death before birth is still awful even if there are other issues.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But from whatever location you are at you presume to suggest that women should not be given the same bodily rights afforded under all other circumstances.

The problem for me, is that the unborn child has the right to life. There's a conflict of rights, that's why it's important to help the mother get through this as much as possible, and why it's important to allow the child to live.

That's my point. I'm not for ignoring either party.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

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.

Are you suggesting you have no view as to whether abortion should be legal or illegal? Or whether those who abort or procure an abortion should be criminalised?

Or are you just reluctant to give your view as to whether the oral contraceptive pill hould be legal or illegal?

Millicent

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.

Contraceptives are not abortifacients since no fertilisation of the egg has occurred. You are using the term incorrectly which does not serve your argument.

philologos

I've answered you already drkpower. In an ideal world as far as I see it shouldn't be legal if it causes the death of unborn children in certain contexts. It is legal only as a result of what people have decided concerning sexual ethics.

Millicent, I agree. Most aren't. The MAP however does destroy the embryo, as the pill can. That's why I have ethical issue with them. MAP and the pill can work post-conception.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

The problem for me, is that the unborn child has the right to life. There's a conflict of rights, that's why it's important to help the mother get through this as much as possible, and why it's important to allow the child to live.

That's my point. I'm not for ignoring either party.

No - in your opinion all conceptions should not be interfered with. As the pill, IUDs and other hormonal contraceptives - as well as the newly legalised here MAP shows, conception is not automatically a right to life.

If it's merely your opinion that all ought to be given the right to life, then we're back to me demanding you give me your kidney.

philologos

Of course my opinion that the human life is worth defending is motivating this discussion. As is your opinion that it isn't. That's what a discussion is Ickle Magoo. Liberty and rights, are not society's to give though as far as I can tell. Saudi Arabia supports stoning Muslims who leave Islam to death for example. Is it OK that Saudi Arabia denies that right? Likewise, I can hold a similar position in respect to abortion. Ultimately human rights are above any State. They are given by a higher authority than any State or principality.

Millicent

philologos wrote: »

I've answered you already drkpower. In an ideal world as far as I see it shouldn't be legal if it causes the death of unborn children in certain contexts. It is legal only as a result of what people have decided concerning sexual ethics.

Millicent, I agree. Most aren't. The MAP however does destroy the embryo, as the pill can. That's why I have ethical issue with them.

The Morning After Pill does not abort so is not an abortifacient. Wiki definition here:

Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs intended to disrupt ovulation or fertilization, which are steps necessary for pregnancy (contraceptives). There is controversy about whether such drugs may in some cases act not as a contraceptive but as a contragestive, a drug that prevents the implantation of a human embryo in the uterus, thus preventing pregnancy, although one study has concluded that this mechanism is unlikely

The pill also does not cause abortion in any way and simply acts as a method to prevent fertilisation so I'm not sure how that is an abortifacient either.

With all due respect, I seem to recall this was explained to you on another thread too, so it is a little disingenuous to repeat this position.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Of course my opinion that the human life is worth defending is motivating this discussion.

Really? I would never have guessed - you are also trying to pass off opinion as fact, which is quite different to discussion motivation.

philologos wrote: »

As is your opinion that it isn't. That's what a discussion is Ickle Magoo. Liberty and rights, are not society's to give though as far as I can tell.

You have no idea what my opinion on the enormous and complex topic of "human life" is - so please don't make such disingenuous sweeping statements.

I think you'll find many liberties and rights are indeed societies to give - and take for that matter, that's why you'll find them enshrined or dismissed in constitution and statute.

philologos

Millicent wrote: »

The Morning After Pill does not abort so is not an abortifacient. Wiki definition here:

The pill also does not cause abortion in any way and simply acts as a method to prevent fertilisation so I'm not sure how that is an abortifacient either.

With all due respect, I seem to recall this was explained to you on another thread too, so it is a little disingenuous to repeat this position.

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from.

Life is formed at conception. If one is preventing implantation, one is destroying the previously formed life. That's why I regard them as abortifacients.

Ickle Magoo: This means that the State is king, and that if you are brought up in certain countries you don't have human rights. I believe that human rights exist independent of the State and should be defended irrespective of what any Government says.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I've answered you already drkpower. In an ideal world as far as I see it shouldn't be legal if it causes the death of unborn children in certain contexts. It is legal only as a result of what people have decided concerning sexual ethics..

No; you havent answered it at all.

In the real world, you are prepared to advocate that abortion be illegal; and that those who procure an abortion be criminalised.

So, in the real world, do you advocate that the oral contraceptive pill be illegal; and that those who use it be criminalised.

Dermighty

blatantrereg wrote: »

Just noticed the date on that article is 1994. Old news or not, I think it is pretty relevant. It's a pretty strong testment against late term abortion twenty years ago.

FYP

philologos

In the real world, I advocate what's right. I expect people to do otherwise generally. I don't expect people to agree with me, and a few years ago I don't think I would have agreed with the now-me on this issue.

Millicent

philologos wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from.

Life is formed at conception. If one is preventing implantation, one is destroying the previously formed life. That's why I regard them as abortifacients.

Ickle Magoo: This means that the State is king, and that if you are brought up in certain countries you don't have human rights.

But no conception has occurred so you are using the term "abortifacients" incorrectly. The physical act of sex, which could possibly lead to conception has occurred, but no fertilisation of a sperm to an ovum has occurred, hence conception has not occurred. ETA: There is no "previously formed life" -- no life has had an opportunity to form at all.

The correct term is "contraceptive" or "contraception", not "abortifacient" when conception has not occurred.

Just out of curiosity, do you view condoms as abortifacients?

Ickle Magoo

Millicent wrote: »

The Morning After Pill does not abort so is not an abortifacient. Wiki definition here:

In fairness to philologos, the definition of abortion depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes a pregnancy...

philologos wrote:

Ickle Magoo: This means that the State is king, and that if you are brought up in certain countries you don't have human rights.

Indeed - by dismissing the bodily rights of pregnant women, for instance...

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

In the real world, I advocate what's right. I expect people to do otherwise generally.

Why the reluctance to state what you believe? Not solong ago, you berated others for their lack of honesty.

Ill try again:
So, in the real world, do you advocate that the oral contraceptive pill be illegal; and that those who use it be criminalised.

Millicent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In fairness to philologos, the definition of abortion depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes a pregnancy...

But if conception hasn't taken place, then it can't be classified as a pregnancy.

Another article on how it works:

1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

I'm stretching my imagination for how any definition of pregnancy can consider the failure of an egg to implant as an abortion.

Ickle Magoo

3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

As implantation only takes place post-conception then your own quoted article is also describing preventing pregnancy, post-conception.

philologos

Millicent: You're misunderstanding my position. My point is that the MAP and the pill can act as abortifacients. They function in making implantation less likely. So it is possible that an embryo can be fertilized and the MAP / pill can destroy it. I have no issue with contraceptives (preventing conception). I have issues with destroying life any stage after conception on an ethical level.

No I don't view condoms as abortifacients. You've misunderstood my position.

drkpower: I'm not reluctant at all. I've told you what I think. The real world, has largely rejected what is right in favour of what is wrong in respect to this issue and in many others. The task is largely a grass roots one - standing up for what is right, and encouraging others who see it to do the same. That applies to all issues and not just this one.

Millicent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As implantation only takes place post-conception then your own quoted article is also describing preventing pregnancy, post-conception.

Fair enough. I also understand his position on condoms vs. the pill, even if I don't agree.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

drkpower: I'm not reluctant at all. I've told you what I think. The real world, has largely rejected what is right in favour of what is wrong in respect to this issue and in many others. The task is largely a grass roots one - standing up for what is right, and encouraging others who see it to do the same. That applies to all issues and not just this one.

Do you believe abortion should be legal (in Ireland, the UK or any other country)?

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

The real world, has largely rejected what is right in favour of what is wrong in respect to this issue and in many others. The task is largely a grass roots one - standing up for what is right, and encouraging others who see it to do the same. That applies to all issues and not just this one.

Equally, I could argue the world has largely accepted what is right - and you stand up with a minority for what is wrong - but as the whole right/wrong argument is completely subjective, it seems rather pointless to claim to have some grandiose ethical trumping of one side over another.

philologos

Let's quote my previous post:

I've answered you already drkpower. In an ideal world as far as I see it shouldn't be legal if it causes the death of unborn children in certain contexts. It is legal only as a result of what people have decided concerning sexual ethics.

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've been quite clear. It shouldn't be legal, but the reality is that it is in many countries and probably will be in Ireland, and it will be until people realise that the real issue concerning it is being swept under the carpet. I regard it as a human injustice of the highest order.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I've been quite clear. It shouldn't be legal

Ok, so your view is that the oral contraceptive pill should be illegal.

Do you believe that those who use should be criminalised in the same way in which those who procure an abortion, or kill a child, should be criminalised?

philologos

Read my posts drkpower. That's all you need to do

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Read my posts drkpower. That's all you need to do

I'd like you to answer a straightforward question in an honest manner:

Ok, so your view is that the oral contraceptive pill should be illegal.

Do you believe that those who use should be criminalised in the same way in which those who procure an abortion, or kill a child, should be criminalised?

Stark

philologos wrote: »

It's nothing to do with cells either. Simply put, I was the embryo, and so were you when we were much younger.

I was also a sperm and an ovum. Just because they were separate entities makes them no less valid than a zygote/embryo that can itself split into multiple entities. You can't argue that they have a lesser role in the process of human life.

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

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.

That's where you're wrong. The cells in your body are dividing and multiplying as we speak and they all came from the same source. Barring a few switches to control their behaviour, there's little difference between them and the zygote they came from. "Human life" as in the conciousness, thoughts and feelings that differentiate us from plants and bacteria is an emergent property that comes about after your central nervous system forms. It's not something that can be contained within one zygote or even within an embryo that hasn't begun the process of cell differentiation.

There are plenty of embryos in frozen storage at the moment created through IVF processes and the like. Should we find women and force them to have them implanted so they can realise their potential as human life? Why should we force them to take something that simply contains the DNA for forming a human and force them to undergo the process of growing a human from that DNA? We've moved on from the dark days when a woman's duty in life was to give life to as many offspring as possible regardless of whether she was in a position to support them. The decision to take DNA from a male and female partner, combine them and have them implanted into a woman's uterus to begin a process of becoming human life is something that should only happen with a woman's full consent.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

[QUOTE=philologos;77374607

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

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.

That's where you're wrong. The cells in your body are dividing and multiplying as we speak and they all came from the same source. Barring a few switches to control their behaviour, there's little difference between them and the zygote they came from. "Human life" as in the conciousness, thoughts and feelings that differentiate us from plants and bacteria is an emergent property that comes about after your central nervous system forms. It's not something that can be contained within one zygote or even within an embryo that hasn't begun the process of cell differentiation.

There are plenty of embryos in frozen storage at the moment created through IVF processes and the like. Should we find women and force them to have them implanted so they can realise their potential as human life? Why should we force them to take something that simply contains the DNA for forming a human and force them to undergo the process of growing a human from that DNA? We've moved on from the dark days when a woman's duty in life was to give life to as many offspring as possible regardless of whether she was in a position to support them. The decision to take DNA from a male and female partner, combine them and have them implanted into a woman's uterus to begin a process of becoming human life is something that should only happen with a woman's full consent.

I never said that i was quoting philogos . Anyways my problem with his arguement remains the same his solution to ridding the world of abortion , by suggesting we all marry at an early age and remain in that marriage is unworkable and completely ridiculous.

The implications if such a system was to be inforced would only lead to a reliving of a pre- abortion time (if one ever exsisted) meaning that more woman would die through botched back street abortions and more new borns would be found in garbage bins.

If people are truely interesed in eradicating abortion or seeing it decreased i think it would be a much more posistive step forward to find a better cheaper and healthier form of contraception than the ones currently available and one which dare i say it messed with the males fertilty for a change.