Abortion Discussion

JimiTime

If its not a human life, what is it? A monkey? Of course its a human life, I thought those who are for being allowed the choice to kill the developing life introduce the concept of, 'when does the life have a certain value' and usually this leads onto the philosophy of personhood. Do people really deny that the life created at conception is something other than human?

Piliger

JimiTime wrote: »

If its not a human life, what is it? A monkey? Of course its a human life, I thought those who are for being allowed the choice to kill the developing life introduce the concept of, 'when does the life have a certain value' and usually this leads onto the philosophy of personhood. Do people really deny that the life created at conception is something other than human?

It's human tissue but not a viable life, no.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

If its not a human life, what is it? A monkey? Of course its a human life, I thought those who are for being allowed the choice to kill the developing life introduce the concept of, 'when does the life have a certain value' and usually this leads onto the philosophy of personhood. Do people really deny that the life created at conception is something other than human?

Is a skin cell a human life? How about a sperm or egg? How about a beating heart? How about a person with their brain removed kept alive by life support?

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

If its not a human life, what is it? A monkey? Of course its a human life, I thought those who are for being allowed the choice to kill the developing life introduce the concept of, 'when does the life have a certain value' and usually this leads onto the philosophy of personhood. Do people really deny that the life created at conception is something other than human?

No, I for one don't reject that. But I do reject the notion that human life is somehow sacred because of being human. I reject the notion that an unwanted 12 week old fetus (though human, and alive) has more importance in this world than the entire herd of cattle that you and I have eaten over the course of our lives.

We are selfish, and as thinking, considerate and social animals, we give ourselves the right to decide whether the needs of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant (up to a certain point) are more important than the life of a non sentient fetus. You don't have to agree, but unfortunately your views are backed by the kind of religious clout that would keep women of Ireland barefoot and pregnant and/or shame and shun those of us who have to travel for abortions.

Well done you. Pat yourself on the back :mad:

Sarky

Oh yay, Jimi's back! Personality-changing, compassionate inner shame for everyone!

Peregrinus

Piliger wrote: »

It's human tissue but not a viable life, no.

It's human (it's not feline, canine or simian, but human) and it's alive (if only because it can die).

Attempts to justify abortion on the basis that the foetus does not represent human life are based on the grossest scientific ignorantism. They're pretty much on a par with creationism; they involve a flat denial of well-established scientific facts.

The ethical issue not whether human life is involved; it's whether a person is involved.

Piliger

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's human (it's not feline, canine or simian, but human) and it's alive (if only because it can die).

Attempts to justify abortion on the basis that the foetus does not represent human life are based on the grossed scientific ignorantism. They're pretty much on a par with creationism; they involve a flat denial of well-established scientific facts.

The ethical issue not whether human life is involved; it's whether a person is involved.

You're entitled to your own view. That doesn't make it right or universal.

Peregrinus

Piliger wrote: »

You're entitled to your own view. That doesn't make it right or universal.

Well, I suppose that represents progress from your ealier post:

Piliger wrote: »

Bull$hit. No matter what you say, it is not a human life.

Now you've at least reached the point where you're displaying the same level of graciousness as a creationist who is looking for a way out of discussing his indefensible claims.

Absolam

the_monkey wrote: »

Those protestors are the sc*m of the Earth, pushing the idea that an abortion is the same as murdering a newborn baby.

Sick sick sick people.

Damn idea pushers. There should be a law about it.

Piliger

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I suppose that represents progress from your ealier post:

Now you've at least reached the point where you're displaying the same level of graciousness as a creationist who is looking for a way out of discussing his indefensible claims.

Nope. I never suggested you didn't have a right to your view. But it is still Bull$hit hat you posted about the photo. No matter what you say, it is not a human life.

Peregrinus

Piliger wrote: »

Nope. I never suggested you didn't have a right to your view. But it is still Bull$hit hat you posted about the photo.

I haven't posted anything about any photo. you are confusing me with someone else.

Piliger wrote: »

No matter what you say, it is not a human life.

To quote your own words, "you're entitled to your own view. That doesn't make it right or universal." And when your view is a flat denial of scientifically established fact, your right to the view does not mean that anybody else has to take it seriously.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

I haven't posted anything about any photo. you are confusing me with someone else.


To quote your own words, "you're entitled to your own view. That doesn't make it right or universal." And when your view is a flat denial of scientifically established fact, your right to the view does not mean that anybody else has to take it seriously.

Sorry to be late to the party, folks, and I'm sure I can probably find the answer to my question if I scrolled up the page, but I must ask, what scientifically established fact are we referring to here?

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry to be late to the party, folks, and I'm sure I can probably find the answer to my question if I scrolled up the page, but I must ask, what scientifically established fact are we referring to here?

That the foetus of homo sapiens is (a) human, and (b) alive. Piliger asserts that, no matter what others say, this is "bull$hit", but he doesn't elaborate on why he thinks so, or how cellular biologists have got this so catastrophically wrong.

I've suggested that what he's trying to say is that the foetus is not a person, but he's not having any of that.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

That the foetus of homo sapiens is (a) human, and (b) alive. Piliger asserts that, no matter what others say, this is "bull$hit", but he doesn't elaborate on why he thinks so, or how cellular biologists have got this so catastrophically wrong.

I've suggested that what he's trying to say is that the foetus is not a person, but he's not having any of that.

Ah. Thank you. It is useful to have occasional recaps, 'the story so far', so to speak.

I shall retire with my mocha and await developments.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

That the foetus of homo sapiens is (a) human, and (b) alive. Piliger asserts that, no matter what others say, this is "bull$hit", but he doesn't elaborate on why he thinks so, or how cellular biologists have got this so catastrophically wrong.

I've suggested that what he's trying to say is that the foetus is not a person, but he's not having any of that.

Its brain is not developed. It does not react to stimulus and it is incapable of managing its own respiration, it therefore does not currently meet all of the seven criteria of life* any more than one of my teeth does. It will become alive, but I don't believe that it can be considered a life in its own right.

* Growth, respiration, reaction to stimulus, reproduction, adaptation, being composed of cells, and having differentiated cells.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Its brain is not developed. It does not react to stimulus and it is incapable of managing its own respiration, it therefore does not currently meet all of the seven criteria of life* any more than one of my teeth does. It will become alive, but I don't believe that it can be considered a life in its own right.

* Growth, respiration, reaction to stimulus, reproduction, adaptation, being composed of cells, and having differentiated cells.

I would say it is 'human' as in that is it's species.
I would say it is 'alive' but not sentient. So are flowers - if you cut them they will die therefore they are at some point alive.

For me - sentience is the key to what we like to call 'human'. I see no difference between terminating the existence of a non-sentient foetus and a non-sentient adult. Haven't seen many placards about the latter funnily enough...

and yes - if I am brain dead harvest the usable bits and turn the damn machine off cos Bannasidhe will have left the building..

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

No, I for one don't reject that. But I do reject the notion that human life is somehow sacred because of being human. I reject the notion that an unwanted 12 week old fetus (though human, and alive) has more importance in this world than the entire herd of cattle that you and I have eaten over the course of our lives.

Thats what I said. There is no denying its human life, but people then move the discussion as to when the value of a human life becomes worthy of protecting it from being deliberately snuffed out.

We are selfish, and as thinking, considerate and social animals, we give ourselves the right to decide whether the needs of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant (up to a certain point) are more important than the life of a non sentient fetus. You don't have to agree, but unfortunately your views are backed by the kind of religious clout that would keep women of Ireland barefoot and pregnant and/or shame and shun those of us who have to travel for abortions.

Well done you. Pat yourself on the back :mad:

Just because you sought to end the life of your developing child and decided to go abroad to have him\her killed, does not mean that the state should feel obliged to be complicit in his\her killing too. Also, just because an organisation that happens to be anti-abortion has been guilty of some horrid acts against women in the past, does not equate to 'therefore abortion is right'. There acts against women were wrong, and so is abortion.

lazygal

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats what I said. There is no denying its human life, but people then move the discussion as to when the value of a human life becomes worthy of protecting it from being deliberately snuffed out.



Just because you sought to end the life of your developing child and decided to go abroad to have him\her killed, does not mean that the state should feel obliged to be complicit in his\her killing too. Also, just because an organisation that happens to be anti-abortion has been guilty of some horrid acts against women in the past, does not equate to 'therefore abortion is right'. There acts against women were wrong, and so is abortion.

Why is abortion wrong? Is it always wrong? What about abortions because of ectopic pregnancy? Or to save a woman's life? Or in the case of a multiple pregnancy to allow other foetuses a greater chance of survival? Or in the case of rape or incest? Or fatal foetal abnormalities?

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

Its brain is not developed. It does not react to stimulus and it is incapable of managing its own respiration, it therefore does not currently meet all of the seven criteria of life* any more than one of my teeth does. It will become alive, but I don't believe that it can be considered a life in its own right.

* Growth, respiration, reaction to stimulus, reproduction, adaptation, being composed of cells, and having differentiated cells.

If that were correct then nobody below the age of sexual maturity would be alive. Catepillars and larvae would not be alive. Etc. I think you're misapplying the criteria af life; it's not the case that an organism has to display all of them at any time in order to be considered living at that time..

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Just because you sought to end the life of your developing child and decided to go abroad to have him\her killed,

Doesn't your arm ever get tired of casting stones oh perfect one?

aloyisious

cos Bannasidhe will have left the building.. Perish the thought.

Morag

Yep it's a developing human, yes the tissue is human, yes the dna is unique.
That still doesn't mean an implanted embryo rights get to trump my rights to health or self determination.

Why do certain people think women are so thick to not understand if they had not of ended the pregnancy that we would have had a baby? For the most part women who choose to have an abortion do so to ensure that the pregnancy does not continue and they do not have a baby.

eviltwin

Why is it, if the chuch believe life starts at conception and that an embryo is as much a human as you or I, that the church don't allow funerals for miscarriages?

JimiTime

lazygal wrote: »

Why is abortion wrong?

Because it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life.

Is it always wrong?

In terms of what is commonly known in terms of the abortion industry i.e. Those things not linked to normal medical intervention to save a mothers life such as ectopic pregnancies etc, then yes. There are different levels of empathy of course, but essentially, killing the innocent growing human when there is not actually a threat to the mothers life can never be right.

What about abortions because of ectopic pregnancy?

See above.

Or to save a woman's life?

See above.

Or in the case of rape?

I would sincerely empathise with such a scenario, and I can't say that the idea would not cross even my strong anti abortion mind if it was my daughter that was the victim of such a heinous crime and all the emotional turmoil that goes with it. However, I could still not say that killing the innocent human growing inside the mother would be right. Put it this way, I wouldn't be greatly troubled or concerned that people in the emotional turmoil of being pregnant after being raped etc seek an abortion. I completely understand why someone would be moved to do such a thing (Even though I still would not call the act right). However, the real concern I have, is the 'I just wasn't ready' mentality. Or this idea that women should just have the right to snuff out their unborn. I find it is of great concern that life would be so cheap to people, and not only life, but the unique life of their own offspring.

JimiTime

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is it, if the chuch believe life starts at conception and that an embryo is as much a human as you or I, that the church don't allow funerals for miscarriages?

Why care what the RCC think? And for the record, I've been to funerals for miscarried babies.

eviltwin

JimiTime wrote: »

Why care what the RCC think? And for the record, I've been to funerals for miscarried babies.

I couldn't give a monkeys what the RCC think but are the ones usually mouthing off the most about abortion and yet I've yet to see them offer full funeral services for miscarriage. At what stage of pregnancy was the loss you attended?

iwantmydinner

JimiTime wrote: »

However, the real concern I have, is the 'I just wasn't ready' mentality. Or this idea that women should just have the right to snuff out their unborn. I find it is of great concern that life would be so cheap to people, and not only life, but the unique life of their own offspring.

How lovely and comfortable it must be for you, telling women that they must be in a permanent state of readiness for pregnancy and motherhood.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Doesn't your arm ever get tired of casting stones oh perfect one?

Have I misrepresented something? Haven't I just repeated what the poster has already said she did while complaining that the Irish State made her go abroad to do it, just without using the flowery language? Using the language I did, gives an insight into why the state don't treat this as the equivalent of having a kidney stone removed, and should also serve to ease her anger as to why it shouldn't be expected that other people should be complicit in ending her unborns life with her.

Not sure if it matters to you, or you'd let it get in the way of having a nice thanks whoring jibe but taking issue with something and believing it is very wrong, does not equate to thinking oneself as perfect.

JimiTime

eviltwin wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys what the RCC think but are the ones usually mouthing off the most about abortion and yet I've yet to see them offer full funeral services for miscarriage. At what stage of pregnancy was the loss you attended?

One was 12 weeks, one was 9 months and one was quite early in the pregnancy, but I'm not sure of the specifics.

JimiTime

iwantmydinner wrote: »

How lovely and comfortable it must be for you, telling women that they must be in a permanent state of readiness for pregnancy and motherhood.

Are you taking issue with the fact that I believe that a woman has a responsibility for their growing child once they have conceived?