Government TD blames 'fornication' for unwanted pregnancies

Stark

philologos wrote: »

I'm trying to say that the personhood question is irrelevant, insofar as the same biological life that is born, goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death is ultimately the same life that was conceived and that develops in the womb.

It's also the same life that was once a sperm and an egg. But we've moved on from the "every sperm is sacred" mentality.

philologos

Stark wrote: »

It's also the same life that was once a sperm and an egg. But we've moved on from the "every sperm is sacred" mentality.

It's unreasonable to hold that position considering that the sperm and the egg in and of themselves don't grow or develop into anything. It is the embryo that does this. Life doesn't begin until the fusion of a sperm and an ova to form a zygote.

That's logical sense, and that's all one really needs to see to be pro-life.

Stark

The zygote can't develop into a human unless it attaches to a placenta (and quite often doesn't). Hence many doctors viewing implantation rather than conception as the start of pregnancy and the morning after pill being available from chemists.

philologos

I'm open to seeing any basis for saying that the embryo doesn't grow or develop at all before implantation (if you're going to provide that).

As far as I can tell the MAP is an abortifacient, it doesn't prevent conception. It prevents implantation.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

Medical emergencies are an entirely different kettle of fish to abortion-by-choice. Medical emergencies save lives, abortion-by-choice destroys lives.

I'm sorry if I was a little bit rash earlier, but I do find it frustrating when people misinterpret my posts and draw conclusions about me on that basis.

Abortion by choice in this particular case isn't saving a life, or destroying a life.

The foetus is going to die, there is no abortion by choice.

I understand you find this concept extremely difficult to comprehend. I sympathise.

I'm asking you to step outside of your moral belief, there is no life to defend here, the mother will either have a miscarriage, have a still born life or watch her baby die after a couple of hours.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Abortion by choice in this particular case isn't saving a life, or destroying a life.

The foetus is going to die, there is no abortion by choice.

I understand you find this concept extremely difficult to comprehend. I sympathise.

I'm asking you to step outside of your moral belief, there is no life to defend here, the mother will either have a miscarriage, have a still born life or watch her baby die after a couple of hours.

PS;

My post was more aimed at the recent high profile cases raised in the Times and the Dail. Would you see those cases as abortion by choice?

Can you please give a direct answer to this question.

philologos

I don't have the same access to the Irish Times, and I don't know what article you're referring to at the moment.

You're not asking me to "step outside of my moral belief". I'm not sure how helpful language like that (or like "I understand you find this concept extremely difficult to comprehend. I sympathise") is in a discussion , it comes off as rather patronising. You're not asking me to step out of anything, you're asking me to give clarification.

Simply put, I wouldn't agree to abortion in such situations unless it could be 100% demonstrated that the child would die.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

It's unreasonable to hold that position considering that the sperm and the egg in and of themselves don't grow or develop into anything. It is the embryo that does this.

Hardly a worthwhile distinction. It is all part of a long process and you are just arbitrarily declaring some stages more important than others based on nothing at all.

The embryo "in and of itself" does not grow or develop into anything either for example. It requires the mother and implantation and more to do so, so even your own arbitrarily cherry picked important stages debunk themselves.

No I think if you want to argue that some stage in the development process should be used to afford the fetus "human rights" then you need to try harder than just cherry picking stages that suit your pre-chosen conclusions. Nor does just declaring everything you yourself say as being "just logical sense" make it so.

philologos wrote: »

No religion is required in this (although I do believe Christianity to be true, and atheism a falsehood that is something which can be explored later)

MUCH later it seems given every time someone confronts you on the subject you run a country mile from the thread and refuse to do so.

Exploring these things you never do. DECLARING these things to be so then retreating however, you do with impunity with a seemingly unending need to erode your own credibility every time.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'm trying to say that the personhood question is irrelevant, insofar as the same biological life that is born, goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death is ultimately the same life that was conceived and that develops in the womb.

You then believe that all embryos created for use IVF have a right to life and that the biological mother must carry all of them to term? If not then you already have an exception for the right to life once conception thats place.

I don't distinguish because it's fact that the life is one and the same. I don't support destroying that life precisely because it is a human life, at an early stage. That's all. It's an argument based on development, and that logic could be applied ex-utero.

Fair enough. So you regard human life as sacred, even if a functioning brain doesn't exist, i.e. no person exists within the body. So you're therefore against the turning off of a life support machine that a brain dead person is depending on as it is, according to you, murder.

The problem for me is that the logic doesn't hold up. There isn't a justification for death in cases of abortion-by-choice.

And I'm not trying to make a case for it. I've been very clear on the question I've been asking, it's always been the link between the physical brain and the existence of a distinct human identity.

philologos

I do have concerns about the extraction and the freezing of embryos outside of the womb for much the same reasons as I've described.

I don't think the analogy in terms of the braindead is particularly useful, insofar as one is at the beginning, and one is at the end. That's clearly what is different. By condemning an unborn child to death before they are born you are denying them the liberty of living a full life, you are effectively taking what is yours by killing. It is entirely different to turn off the power of someone who is absolutely unable to continue living a full life. There's no growth or development there.

It is significant in and of itself that human life should be defended that's irrespective of how developed the foetus is. I was granted this liberty so I'll be damned if I take it from someone else.

Oh, and it isn't all that necessary to say that the human life is "sacred". It's simply put crucially important, and I think any person if they are honest can recognise that much.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I do have concerns about the extraction and the freezing of embryos outside of the womb for much the same reasons as I've described.

Fair enough. At least you're consistent in your stance in that IVF is as much a concern as abortion is.

I don't think the analogy in terms of the braindead is particularly useful, insofar as one is at the beginning, and one is at the end. That's clearly what is different. By condemning an unborn child to death before they are born you are denying them the liberty of living a full life, you are effectively taking what is yours by killing. It is entirely different to turn off the power of someone who is absolutely unable to continue living a full life. There's no growth or development there.

That's not correct as you're presuming that it's always an adult is brain dead. If for example a 6 year old is brain dead, then it would also be murder by your reasoning as the child hasn't finished developing.

With regard to aborting a foetus before a brain is formed, it is prior to creation of a human personality. Up until then, it's essentially an empty vessel.

You're saying that I'm condemning a child to death, but I'm saying that without a brain there is no child. My line of thought on this is that the abortion is being carried out before a soul/spirit/person exists within the foetus.

It is significant in and of itself that human life should be defended that's irrespective of how developed the foetus is. I was granted this liberty so I'll be damned if I take it from someone else.

Then contraceptives must also be a no-no from your perspective as they are another method with could prevent a life from developing.

philologos

Life is already formed at conception. It grows from that point on. Contraceptives don't kill already existing life in the womb. Therefore I have no objection to contraceptives being used. I think if you read my posts up until this point, you'll see that I've been clear on this point.

I don't think you're appreciating what I'm saying if you think that I'm meant to find the braindead analogy all that useful. If there is no hope whatsoever that a living person will continue to live, grow and develop as a biological entity, then I don't see any issue in turning the plug off. It's already over. Indeed, from my perspective, it would be crucial in terms of them meeting their maker if this happened.

Pro-choice activists are campaigning for the right to terminate a perfectly viable human life, with the fundamental liberty to live. I don't think this is acceptable so I reject it as dangerous, and I'm intolerant of the idea of treating someone else's life as a matter of "choice". If the child isn't developed enough to have a brain yet, that's irrelevant. That's like saying that because a three year old mightn't be able to do all I can do that one should have the right to kill. Or even if someone cannot juggle 2742 fresh bananas whilst playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik whilst unicycling across the Kalahari desert. Logically, it is about as arbitrary as those two things. You're ignoring the fact that there is a human life growing and developing in the womb, that human life insofar as it exists and will come to birth, childhood, adolescence and death should be defended.

Denying that liberty, is fundamentally wrong and I won't compromise that position ever.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Life is already formed at conception. It grows from that point on. Contraceptives don't kill already existing life in the womb. Therefore I have no objection to contraceptives being used. I think if you read my posts up until this point, you'll see that I've been clear on this point.

But it prevents a life from happening. It stops conception that could other wise happen.

I don't think you're appreciating what I'm saying if you think that I'm meant to find the braindead analogy all that useful. If there is no hope whatsoever that a living person will continue to live, grow and develop as a biological entity, then I don't see any issue in turning the plug off. It's already over. Indeed, from my perspective, it would be crucial in terms of them meeting their maker if this happened.

The brain issue was to see what you regard as a person. At this stage, I understand it that view a person to exist immediately after conception.

Pro-choice activists are campaigning for the right to terminate a perfectly viable human life, with the fundamental liberty to live. I don't think this is acceptable so I reject it as dangerous, and I'm intolerant of the idea of treating someone else's life as a matter of "choice". If the child isn't developed enough to have a brain yet, that's irrelevant. That's like saying that because a three year old mightn't be able to do all I can do that one should have the right to kill. Or even if someone cannot juggle 2742 fresh bananas whilst playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik whilst unicycling across the Kalahari desert. Logically, it is about as arbitrary as those two things. You're ignoring the fact that there is a human life growing and developing in the womb, that human life insofar as it exists and will come to birth, childhood, adolescence and death should be defended.

Again, you're extending an argument that I haven't been putting forward. I've always said that once the brain exists, the child exists and from that point on I wouldn't be in favour of an abortion happening from that point on. So saying it's okay to kill a three year for example because it isn't "developed" enough is inconsistent with what I've be saying so far.

Denying that liberty, is fundamentally wrong and I won't compromise that position ever.

Except when it comes to a women deciding what is permissible within her own body.

philologos

koth wrote: »

But it prevents a life from happening. It stops conception that could other wise happen.

Preventing a life from happening isn't killing. The sperm and ova are not in and of themselves the life that is formed, and the life that will develop in the womb. They are constituent prerequisites.

Killing is different to contraception, insofar as contraception does not kill already existing life. If it did do so, I would rightfully call them abortifacients.

koth wrote: »

The brain issue was to see what you regard as a person. At this stage, I understand it that view a person to exist immediately after conception.

It doesn't matter at all as to whether or not I regard X or Y as a person, that's a distraction from the discussion. That is as to whether or not there is a human life, and as a result is that life worthy of wholehearted defence. From my point of view absolutely yes, and that the same liberties I received, should be granted to them.

koth wrote: »

Again, you're extending an argument that I haven't been putting forward. I've always said that once the brain exists, the child exists and from that point on I wouldn't be in favour of an abortion happening from that point on. So saying it's okay to kill a three year for example because it isn't "developed" enough is inconsistent with what I've be saying so far.

Extending on the exact same logic. The difference between in-utero and ex-utero hasn't really been satisfied.

koth wrote: »

Except when it comes to a women deciding what is permissible within her own body.

Obviously, it isn't just her body. It is also the body of the unborn child. If it were just the body of the mother this would be a non-argument. The fact is that this concerns another life, other than that of the mother. If it didn't, I'd be in agreement.

It's dishonest to claim that this is just about the mother, because it couldn't be any further from the truth irrespective of how much many of the pro-choice belief might want to deny that.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Preventing a life from happening isn't killing. The sperm and ova are not in and of themselves the life that is formed, and the life that will develop in the womb. They are constituent prerequisites.

But pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation occurs, so an embryo doesn't mean that a person will be the result of conception. AFAIK, between 60 and 80% of conceptions don't implant.

Killing is different to contraception, insofar as contraception does not kill already existing life. If it did do so, I would rightfully call them abortifacients.

They both stop a child from being born, it's just that you've decided at what stage to no longer allow a woman to have ownership of her own body.

It doesn't matter at all as to whether or not I regard X or Y as a person, that's a distraction from the discussion. That is as to whether or not there is a human life, and as a result is that life worthy of wholehearted defence. From my point of view absolutely yes, and that the same liberties I received, should be granted to them.

It's not a distraction. If you claim someone is being murdered and it can be shown that the "person" doesn't exist yet, then it can't be murder.

Extending on the exact same logic. The difference between in-utero and ex-utero hasn't really been satisfied.

Because you continue to ignore the question I'm asking. You're stating that the presence of a brain makes no difference with regards to something being referred to as murder.

Obviously, it isn't just her body. It is also the body of the unborn child. If it were just the body of the mother this would be a non-argument. The fact is that this concerns another life, other than that of the mother. If it didn't, I'd be in agreement.

Yes, but you've stated that unless it's 100% certainty that a child won't survive birth, that the mother must carry the child to term. To me, that's extreme cruelty to a woman (and potentially to the child). And this could be a woman like one of those on the Late Late who wanted a child but sadly the child wouldn't survive the birth.

It's dishonest to claim that this is just about the mother, because it couldn't be any further from the truth irrespective of how much many of the pro-choice belief might want to deny that.

I never said it's just about the mother. But there is a period of time where it is only the mother and an embryo. Personally, I'm not comfortable telling women that they must carry a child to term unless it's 100% certain the child won't survive birth.

philologos

koth wrote: »

But pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation occurs, so an embryo doesn't mean that a person will be the result of conception. AFAIK, between 60 and 80% of conceptions don't implant.

Conception and pregnancy are different things I'll concede that.

Firstly, even if that is true, it doesn't make it acceptable for humans to terminate. And even if that is true, the vast majority of abortions take place well after the pregnancy has begun. Therefore fobbing it off on the basis of not having implanted in the womb is absurd as it doesn't help your pro-choice decision.

koth wrote: »

They both stop a child from being born, it's just that you've decided at what stage to no longer allow a woman to have ownership of her own body.

That's nonsense again for the reason that I've told you. It's not just the mothers body as much as you and other pro-choice advocates might like to say it is. It's absolute dishonesty to claim that.

koth wrote: »

It's not a distraction. If you claim someone is being murdered and it can be shown that the "person" doesn't exist yet, then it can't be murder.

It is a distraction. It is human life, it's just a young human life. You're making a fallacious distinction on the basis of development, and I've pointed out to you the exact mistake in logic that you've made. If the logic can be applied ex-utero, it is up to you to justify how in-utero is significantly different to ex-utero. I've not seen anything convincing to date in respect to it.

koth wrote: »

Because you continue to ignore the question I'm asking. You're stating that the presence of a brain makes no difference with regards to something being referred to as murder.

I've answered the question. I've thoroughly questioned the logic behind it, and I've shown it to be fallacious. I have also questioned why having a brain is relevant to determine whether or not a human life has begun in the womb.

koth wrote: »

Yes, but you've stated that unless it's 100% certainty that a child won't survive birth, that the mother must carry the child to term. To me, that's extreme cruelty to a woman (and potentially to the child). And this could be a woman like one of those on the Late Late who wanted a child but sadly the child wouldn't survive the birth.

I think that killing a child is extremely cruel to a child. That's why I've said that we need to compromise as best we can in respect to both rights. The pro-choice belief pretty much requires people to ignore the rights of the child. That to me will never be an acceptable resolution, and that's why I reject pro-choice thinking. It advocates killing someone else as a matter of choice.

koth wrote: »

I never said it's just about the mother. But there is a period of time where it is only the mother and an embryo. Personally, I'm not comfortable telling women that they must carry a child to term unless it's 100% certain the child won't survive birth.

You've just said it again above. You never make reference to the rights of the child, so I must presume that you are ignoring them. You make points about a woman having ownership of their own body, whilst needlessly ignoring that it isn't just her body.

I'm not comfortable saying that I respect the idea that someone should be able to kill someone else as a matter of personal choice, and God willing I never will be comfortable with it.

Delirium

I'm out of this discussion for now, philo. We're both going around in circles. I don't agree with your point of view, and you don't with mine. And it seems at this stage that neither of us are willing to budge from our respective positions.

We'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see anything to be gained from continuing this discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the analogy in terms of the braindead is particularly useful, insofar as one is at the beginning, and one is at the end.

Like I pointed out in the last post this is just another cherry picked arbitrary distinction. Start and end makes little difference to the simple fact that there is no "human" person present in any sense if the brain is completely devoid of the activity in question.

philologos wrote: »

By condemning an unborn child to death before they are born you are denying them the liberty of living a full life

Another word salad which actually means very little. Your point here makes just as much sense as saying that a couple who, for reasons of their own, change their mind from having 4 children to having none, have denied those 4 children the liberty of living a full life.

In essence in both cases you are showing moral concern for people who have never existed which is just pointless rhetoric and little more. You are getting haughty about denying rights to an entity that never existed and never had those rights in the first place.

Perhaps if you started aiming your concerns solely at entities who have already got rights you might stop looking so ridiculous.

philologos wrote: »

I was granted this liberty so I'll be damned if I take it from someone else.

But again, you are not. You can not take something if it was never given or possessed in the first place.

philologos wrote: »

I think any person if they are honest can recognise that much.

Ah yes the old "If you do not agree with me then you are likely just dishonest" ad hominem trick. You really do have a repertoire of this stuff.

philologos wrote: »

Life is already formed at conception.

Live is already formed for millenia before that. It is all life all the way through the life cycle of the species. Parents are part of the life cycle, so are sperm, so are eggs, so are zygotes, so are fetuses, so are babies. You are just arbitrarily choosing parts of that life cycle to suit yourself and artificially elevating some over others based on nothing at all more than your own religious motivations and biases.

philologos wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that there is a human life growing and developing in the womb

No one is ignoring it, they are just not arbitrarily putting it on a pedestal for no reason as you are.

DonQuay1

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuay1
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

We're obliged to have a dog licence and if we're unfit dog owners then we can be stopped having dogs.
Why aren't we obliged to have a child licence and if we're unfit parents ..... we're not allowed to breed?!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Because... unlike driving a car there's no way of knowing if you'll be a good parent unless you have a child of your own.

It's not rocket science. There's a reason why popular ideas like "parent licenses" aren't taken on as reasonable suggestions. They're completely ridiculous.

So I'll repeat myself and even rephrase myself ....... because obviously SOME people cannot grasp a simple argument....

YOU HAVE A CHILD. STOP.

YOU RAISE IT BADLY. STOP.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED A LICENCE TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN AND RAISE THEM BADLY ALSO. STOP.

CLEARER????? I mean it's just a repeat of what I said earlier!! I mean ,,,, come on .... THINK before you TYPE!!

dvpower

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuay1
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

We're obliged to have a dog licence and if we're unfit dog owners then we can be stopped having dogs.
Why aren't we obliged to have a child licence and if we're unfit parents ..... we're not allowed to breed?!




So I'll repeat myself and even rephrase myself ....... because obviously SOME people cannot grasp a simple argument....

YOU HAVE A CHILD. STOP.

YOU RAISE IT BADLY. STOP.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED A LICENCE TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN AND RAISE THEM BADLY ALSO. STOP.

CLEARER????? I mean it's just a repeat of what I said earlier!! I mean ,,,, come on .... THINK before you TYPE!!

Under your plan, will I be able to buy a child licence at the post office for €15 and will I be fined €50 if I'm caught in possession of a child without a licence?

genericguy

MagicMarker wrote: »

I gave that bitch a fornication, bitches love fornication.

First time I've ever seen a boondocks reference from anyone. Love it.

LH Pathe

I actually want to fornicate with this woman, I like her stern looking mouth. But I will put it off

DonQuay1

dvpower wrote: »

Under your plan, will I be able to buy a child licence at the post office for €15 and will I be fined €50 if I'm caught in possession of a child without a licence?

Yes to both