Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

OldNotWIse

bodice ripper wrote: »

really? a small ball of cells that otherwise bears no resemblance to a human being, which is instantly a human life equal to that of an adult woman? Becomes a human the second of conception?

"human" refers to the species. Never hear of "human remains" being found? Who do you think the remains belonged to? An ostrich?

I think you may be confusing human with personhood. I for one do not consider that personhood begins at conception, but to argue that the cells are not human is daft.

bodice ripper

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"human" refers to the species. Never hear of "human remains" being found? Who do you think the remains belonged to? An ostrich?

I think you may be confusing human with personhood. I for one do not consider that personhood begins at conception, but to argue that the cells are not human is daft.

And if I were arguing that, you might have a point. But hey, if you are going to get defensive enough to be rude, who cares what I actually wrote, right?

OldNotWIse

bodice ripper wrote: »

And if I were arguing that, you might have a point. But hey, if you are going to get defensive enough to be rude, who cares what I actually wrote, right?

I Know right? You're arguing that referring to the cells as "human" means that we want to declare the existence of a soul. That makes...so much more sense.

I dont know how you get through the day if you think that someone challenging you constitutes rudeness. You must be an emotional wreck.

bodice ripper

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I Know right? You're arguing that referring to the cells as "human" means that we want to declare the existence of a soul. That makes...so much more sense.

I dont know how you get through the day if you think that someone challenging you constitutes rudeness. You must be an emotional wreck.

I'll take the ban.

Wow, you are an asshole.

I said claiming human life begins at conception is arguing for a soul. read it again.

conorhal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"human" refers to the species. Never hear of "human remains" being found? Who do you think the remains belonged to? An ostrich?

I think you may be confusing human with personhood. I for one do not consider that personhood begins at conception, but to argue that the cells are not human is daft.

There has been a lot of denial and avoidance of the question of humanity by the pro-choice side because then you could not avoid talking about when a limit would have to be placed on performing an abortion. Currently this legislation permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.

Reilly's insistance that 'a right has no term limits' is a disturbing position (try arguing that with him when you are begging the HSE to respect your right to life and give you expensive cancer drugs). It's an ideological stance about a real life which completely re-draws the social and cultural values we place on human life as a society which is a debate that Relley seems desperate to avoid.

Ultimately I think Lucinda Creighton is right, there is a massive amount 'group think' going on and even Labours Rosin Shorthall is suggesting that we actually pause, look at what Reilly's 'a right has no term limit' stance actually means, and examine in a thoughtful manner not just the question of when an abortion permissable, but also when it is not. Seemingly nobody wants to ask that question though.

This is bad law based on a hard case, and as everybody knows, hard cases make bad laws, the question that remains however is will this bad law create hard cases?

Bannasidhe

conorhal wrote: »

There has been a lot of denial and avoidance of the question of personhood by the pro-choice side because then you could not avoid talking about when a limit would have to be placed on performing an abortion.Currently this legislation permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.

Reilly's insistance that 'a right has no term limits' is a disturbing position (try arguing that with him when you are begging the HSE to respect your right to life and give you expensive cancer drugs). It's an ideological stance about a real life which completely re-draws the social and cultural values we place on human life as a society which is a debate that Relley seems desperate to avoid.

Ultimately I think Lucinda Creighton is right, there is a massive amount 'group think' going on and even Labours Rosin Shorthall is suggesting that we actually pause, look at what Reilly's 'a right has no term limit' stance actually means, and examine in a thoughtful manner not just the question of when an abortion permissable, but also when it is not. Seemingly nobody wants to ask that question though.

This is bad law based on a hard case, and as everybody knows, hard cases make bad laws, the question that remains however is will this bad law create hard cases?

Sweetest divine not this again.

The words 'abortion'/'termination' refers to aborting/terminating/ending the pregnancy.

A cesarean 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.
Inducing labour 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.

Aborting a pregnancy does not always = death of a fetus. It means the pregnancy has ended. Birth also terminates a fecking pregnancy!

But don't let the facts get in your way.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest divine not this again.

The words 'abortion'/'termination' refers to aborting/terminating/ending the pregnancy.

A cesarean 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.
Inducing labour 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.

Aborting a pregnancy does not always = death of a fetus. It means the pregnancy has ended. Birth also terminates a fecking pregnancy!

But don't let the facts get in your way.

D'you know, I'd never thought of it that way before. Ain't the Internet great!

conorhal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest divine not this again.

The words 'abortion'/'termination' refers to aborting/terminating/ending the pregnancy.

A cesarean 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.
Inducing labour 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.

Aborting a pregnancy does not always = death of a fetus. It means the pregnancy has ended. Birth also terminates a fecking pregnancy!

But don't let the facts get in your way.

So when a DX is performed and a baby's brain is sucked out of it's head we should have and incubator standing by?
This is semantic BS that is just attempting to avoid a basic truth, nobody that goes for an abortion expects to be handed a premature baby, and nobody that that has a c-section expects to be handed a dead one.
You can pretend all you like that the point of an abortion isn't the ending of the life of a foetus, but that doesn't make it the case.

squod

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest divine not this again.

The words 'abortion'/'termination' refers to aborting/terminating/ending the pregnancy.

A cesarean 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.
Inducing labour 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.

Aborting a pregnancy does not always = death of a fetus. It means the pregnancy has ended. Birth also terminates a fecking pregnancy!

But don't let the facts get in your way.

Presume the previous poster meant after 20 or so weeks.

Bannasidhe

conorhal wrote: »

So when a DX is performed and a baby's brain is sucked out of it's head we should have and incubator standing by?
This is semantic BS that is just attempting to avoid a basic truth, nobody that goes for an abortion expects to be handed a premature baby, and nobody that that has a c-section expects to be handed a dead one.
You can pretend all you like that the point of an abortion isn't the ending of the life of a foetus, but that doesn't make it the case.

If the embryo is less than 7 weeks old it doesn't have a brain to be sucked anywhere.

You would like to claim there is no difference between a brainless embryo and a fetus capable of living outside the womb and then accuse others of avoiding a basic truth and semantics?

How do you know what people going for an abortion does or does not expect? Have you spoken to them all?

My pregnancy was technically aborted - I was handed a very much alive baby. If they had not chemically aborted my pregnancy I could very well have been handed a dead baby.

How many pregnancies have you experienced?
How many abortions have you experienced?

I wonder as you seem to consider yourself an expert on the subject.

conorhal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the embryo is less than 7 weeks old it doesn't have a brain to be sucked anywhere.

You would like to claim there is no difference between a brainless embryo and a fetus capable of living outside the womb and then accuse others of avoiding a basic truth and semantics?

How do you know what people going for an abortion does or does not expect? Have you spoken to them all?

My pregnancy was technically aborted - I was handed a very much alive baby. If they had not chemically aborted my pregnancy I could very well have been handed a dead baby.

How many pregnancies have you experienced?
How many abortions have you experienced?

I wonder as you seem to consider yourself an expert on the subject.

1) I have no issue with an abortion at 7wks

2) You sir are a troll of the highest order.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My pregnancy was technically aborted - I was handed a very much alive baby. If they had not chemically aborted my pregnancy I could very well have been handed a dead baby.

conorhal wrote: »

2) You sir are a troll of the highest order.

Oh deary, deary me.

I appear to have been both personally attacked and had a virtual sex change.

Fail/Fail.

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the embryo is less than 7 weeks old it doesn't have a brain to be sucked anywhere.

Up until about 2 months before birth, the brain cells aren't even connected to eachother. You may as well dismantle a car into its component pieces and still expect the pile of unconnected parts to drive you to work.

TwoShedsJackson

conorhal wrote: »

2) You sir are a troll of the highest order.

Yes, when in doubt, start insulting the other person.

St.Spodo

Zulu wrote: »

Read the post. Notice the text in bold.

I wish you would address my post, no. 552.

endacl

conorhal wrote: »

You sir are a troll of the highest order.

Where do you find yourself on the chart? Towards the pointy bit is good. The bottom, not so much...



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WvOW12_wRrw/TX3Qf2k6lBI/AAAAAAAABIo/cQhry1YVCic/s400/Hierarchy%2Bof%2BArgument%2Bon%2Bthe%2BInternet.jpg

PopePalpatine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Could substitute mortgage for pregnancy in that statement and you'd get fleeced in AH.

But sure, only a feteous?

It's apples and oranges, if you decided to kill yourself because of your mortgage, the debt is passed onto at least one of your relatives AFAIK, and a pregnant woman can't pass on her pregnancy to someone else (yet) if she were to die.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest divine not this again.

The words 'abortion'/'termination' refers to aborting/terminating/ending the pregnancy.

A cesarean 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.
Inducing labour 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.

Aborting a pregnancy does not always = death of a fetus. It means the pregnancy has ended. Birth also terminates a fecking pregnancy!

But don't let the facts get in your way.

Is it though? I posted on another related thread where I held the view that the definition of abortion is uncertain, e.g it refers to the termination of a viable pregnancy, another poster stated that this is not the case, as abortion is defined as the "termination before a viable age" (their link to medical dictionary).

Take a quick search through a few online non-medical dictionaries and you'l see that most of them will give conorhal's (he said abortion not termination keep in mind) view of what abortion means as one of the definitions given.

But don't let facts get in your way

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Is it though? I posted on another related thread where I held the view that the definition of abortion is uncertain, e.g it refers to the termination of a viable pregnancy, another poster stated that this is not the case, as abortion is defined as the "termination before a viable age" (their link to medical dictionary).

Take a quick search through a few online non-medical dictionaries and you'l see that most of them will give conorhal's (he said abortion not termination keep in mind) view of what abortion means as one of the definitions given.

But don't let facts get in your way

In that case I should have gotten very cross indeed with the OB/GYN who told me he intended to abort my pregnancy to save the fetus - but shure what would he know about it...

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In that case I should have gotten very cross indeed with the OB/GYN who told me he intended to abort my pregnancy to save the fetus - but shure what would he know about it...

A doctor using a term does not imply that that is the sole correct definition , your post to to conorhal clearly implies that your definition is the sole correct one, a tiny bit of research shows this is not the case, is so its not really much of a fact is it ?

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A doctor using a term does not imply that that is the sole correct definition , your post to to conorhal clearly implies that your definition is the sole correct one, a tiny bit of research shows this is not the case, is so its not really much of a fact is it ?

So you agree more than one definition is possible which makes the definition I gave valid just not the same as the one you prefer.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you agree more than one definition is possible which makes the definition I gave valid just not the same as the one you prefer.

Of course I do !

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I held the view that the definition of abortion is uncertain

However if you read your original post to conorhal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest divine not this again.

The words 'abortion'/'termination' refers to aborting/terminating/ending the pregnancy.

A cesarean 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.
Inducing labour 'terminates'/'aborts'/'ends' the pregnancy.

Aborting a pregnancy does not always = death of a fetus. It means the pregnancy has ended. Birth also terminates a fecking pregnancy!

But don't let the facts get in your way.

Its quiet clear that you are the one that thinks there is only one correct definition of the word abortion, your one, a Fact :rolleyes: that a tiny bit of research would show is incorrect but your the one accusing another poster of misrepresenting the issue.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Of course I do !


However if you read your original post to conorhal



Its quiet clear that you are the one that thinks there is only one correct definition of the word abortion, your one, a Fact :rolleyes: that a tiny bit of research would show is incorrect but your the one accusing another poster of misrepresenting the issue.

Given that the poster you are defending - can he not speak for himself? - was in hyperbolic hyperdrive about 'abortions' up to 9 months as if that absolutely means 'kill the baybee' when it does not I assume you are going to devote an equal amount of energy to telling him why he is wrong by using only one definition...

I won't hold my breath waiting....

conorhal

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Of course I do !


However if you read your original post to conorhal



Its quiet clear that you are the one that thinks there is only one correct definition of the word abortion, your one, a Fact :rolleyes: that a tiny bit of research would show is incorrect but your the one accusing another poster of misrepresenting the issue.

I wouldn't bother engaging this poster, it's simply easier to ignore those that ignore the substance or your argument in favor of logic defying circular semantic arguments whose sole point is thread derailment, I don't think anybody is inder any illusion as to what 'abortion' means.

When is an abortion not an abortion? When the pro-choice crowd get uncomfortable about the bad publicity of late term abortions and start pretending that an abortion is something else.

As I posted before:

I'm strongly pro-life but there are levels of abortion that I can live with because it will and always has been a fact that abortions happen in society. This legislation however permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.
Reilly's insistance that 'a right has no term limits' is one I find the disturbing attitude of a psychotic (try arguing that with him when you are demanding your right to life through expensive cancer drugs).
It's an ideological stance about a real life that completely re-draws the social and cultural values we place on human life as a society. Ultimately I think Lucinda Creighton is right, there is a massive amount 'group think' going on and even Rosin Shorthall is now suggesting that we stop, actually look at what Reilly's 'a right has no term limit' stance actually means, there seems to be quite a few heads in the political sand about the implications of this legislation.

This is bad law based on a hard case, and as everybody knows, hard cases make bad laws, the question that remains however is will this bad law create hard cases?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

conorhal wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging this poster, it's simply easier to ignore those that ignore the substance or your argument in favor of logic defying circular semantic arguments whose sole point is thread derailment, I don't think anybody is inder any illusion as to what 'abortion' means.

When is an abortion not an abortion? When the pro-choice crowd get uncomfortable about the bad publicity of late term abortions and start pretending that an abortion is something else.

As I posted before:

I'm strongly pro-life but there are levels of abortion that I can live with because it will and always has been a fact that abortions happen in society. This legislation however permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.
Reilly's insistance that 'a right has no term limits' is one I find the disturbing attitude of a psychotic (try arguing that with him when you are demanding your right to life through expensive cancer drugs).
It's an ideological stance about a real life that completely re-draws the social and cultural values we place on human life as a society. Ultimately I think Lucinda Creighton is right, there is a massive amount 'group think' going on and even Rosin Shorthall is now suggesting that we stop, actually look at what Reilly's 'a right has no term limit' stance actually means, there seems to be quite a few heads in the political sand about the implications of this legislation.

This is bad law based on a hard case, and as everybody knows, hard cases make bad laws, the question that remains however is will this bad law create hard cases?

Reillys claim is that a constitutional right as per the X Case cannot be time limited, he is clearly legally correct in that assertion, to place a time limit would leave the Bill in direct conflict with the very Constitutional obligation that is supposed to be enshrining in law.
No need to to misrepresent those facts as anything else.

Genghiz Cohen

conorhal wrote: »

I'm strongly pro-life but there are levels of abortion that I can live with because it will and always has been a fact that abortions happen in society. This legislation however permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.

So a woman & fetus should both die because the fetus is nearly able to survive outside the womb?

conorhal

Old and grey wrote: »

Reillys claim is that a constitutional right as per the X Case cannot be time limited, he is clearly legally correct in that assertion, to place a time limit would leave the Bill in direct conflict with the very Constitutional obligation that is supposed to be enshrining in law.
No need to to misrepresent those facts as anything else.

I think that would have to be tested in the supreme court. I'm not a lawyer but the requirement to permit abortion has to be constitutionally ballanced against the rights of the unborn. In that case the rights of the unborn can be ballanced by a term limit.
Personally, I'd have no problem with a law that said abortion was permissable in such cases up to 12 weeks, I'd even support abortion in the case of foetal abnormality up to 20 weeks, but the law as it stands should be challenged constitutionally as it flies in the face of all medial and psychiatric professional opinion. In the case of saving a mothers life from a physical threat like illness or cancer that's another matter.

conorhal

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So a woman & fetus should both die because the fetus is nearly able to survive outside the womb?

God no. Every effort should be made to ensure both survive. It depends on the curcumstances of course. I'm talking about the suicide clause, the foetus is not in that case a threat to the life of the mother, the state of her mental health is and abortion is not recognised by medical professionals as a treatment for that. As I said, I could accept it as a reason for an abortion in say the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, but after that it's an abhorrent idea in my book.

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

I could accept it as a reason for an abortion in say the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, but after that it's an abhorrent idea in my book.

What changes in the 13th week of pregnancy and thereafter? Suppose a woman only finds out she is pregnant in the 13th week, and the foetus causes a threat to her life on any grounds? What's the big leap from 12 to 13 weeks?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

conorhal wrote: »

I think that would have to be tested in the supreme court. I'm not a lawyer but the requirement to permit abortion has to be constitutionally ballanced against the rights of the unborn. In that case the rights of the unborn can be ballanced by a term limit.
Personally, I'd have no problem with a law that said abortion was permissable in such cases up to 12 weeks, I'd even support abortion in the case of foetal abnormality up to 20 weeks, but the law as it stands should be challenged constitutionally as it flies in the face of all medial and psychiatric professional opinion. In the case of saving a mothers life from a physical threat like illness or cancer that's another matter.

It was decided by the supreme Court 21 years ago, trying googling X Case Decision!