Abortion Discussion

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Belgium has universal jurisdiction (for various purposes). Have you noticed them invading anyone... unusual lately, or going on any massive armament sprees?

So does Ireland (for limited purposes). Neither pretends that it offers the opportunity to enforce our laws on other jurisdictions, only that people who are in Belgian/Irish jurisdiction may be prosecuted for certain crimes which were committed outside that jurisdiction.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Wouldn't that make it a "reasonable hypothesis", at worst, rather than a "plausible fiction"?

Wouldn't there have to be some evidence for it in order to be a reasonable hypothesis?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Not many people say "yes, I'm a hypocrite", or "I psychologically compartmentalise on an epic scale". One has to make conclusions about such things on the available data.

If there's available data, then it will show whether there is a substantial basis for the statement.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's hard to believe because there's so little evidence for it, principally.

And yet there still don't seem to be enough people able to convince enough politicians to put a constitutional change to a plebistice?

Brian Shanahan

hinault wrote: »

Catholic Democrat political party is presumably a Catholic ethos based party.

The Canadian Liberal party's "liberal" ethos disbars candidates who advocate prolife views from running for election.

So your whole line of reasoning, and I use that term lightly, is that when an organisation bases its membership criteria against a policy you hold it's censorship, but when you agree with an organisation's discrimination its not censorship.

It's a strange mentality that allows such mental corkscrew gyrations as this.

Brian Shanahan

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You need to cut out this sh1t of misquoting people. I never said any such thing.

Aww you don't like peopl accurately describing your points because they sow you in a bad light. Poor widdle ooo!

And no I am not going to stop pointung out you callous disregard for the reality, nory your stating falsehoods as facts, because it is the best weapon I, amd others, have to show the emptiness of your arguments.

robindch

^^^ Oi, cut that out the two of yiz.

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

You weren't asked whether or not you know the people giving their testimony.

And your qualifications to adjudge the validity of their testimony is what?
What are your qualifications?
What public bodies have you publicly testified to with regard to the beginning of human life?

Can you supply a link showing the testimony that you provided? If so, we await your link.





I'm not brushing anything away. I've listed the names and testimony of witnesses to a public body of enquiry.
I have listed what they stated to that public enquiry.
The veracity of the testimony given has been accepted by the United States Senate.
I have listed the conclusion made by the United States Senate, following those hearings and cross examination.

Feel free to link public testimony from speakers listing their qualifications and when/where this testimony was given, which contradicts the conclusions of the United States Senate hearings.





I await your counterargument

SO:

- Some people have said life begins at conception
- They did this under oath
- Some of them were even doctors!
- A US court was deeply impressed

This proves that life begins at conception.

Damnit! This must mean OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife!

magicbastarder

was it court or the senate who reached whatever conclusion was reached?

Cabaal

magicbastarder wrote: »

was it court or the senate who reached whatever conclusion was reached?

Sure didn't the senate discuss WMD's in Iraq....apparently they did exist!.
Everything said in the senate is fact don't you know

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

Are you saying that these people with their qualification do not have the authority to make the assertions of their testimony? If so, why?

Even if we ignore the fact that we can show the testimony was wrong, it's a terrible appeal to authority. These folks were giving evidence in favour of Orrin Hatch's Human Life Amendemnt to the US constitution in 1981 to the US legislature.

No laws were changed as a result of this testimony. The US legislature did precisely nothing as a result. Your authorities changed no-one's mind.

Which tells you what the US legislature thinks of your authorities: their testimony was not accepted then, and no such amendment has been adopted in the 30 years since.

Vivisectus

I would still want to know if you also support the person-hood rights of Lumpy Vivisectus, and if you do not, on what basis you distinguish between poor Lumpy and the far less developed clumps of cells whose murder you keep deploring and on whose behalf you keep using emotive terms.

aloyisious

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Wrong. Two innocent lives alive today. Neither of who did anything wrong. Neither of whom should be killed or stigmatised.

Re your post at 01.04 "Lets hope her child never does either, given the amount of people on this thread that would much prefer she had been aborted" - people were not so much preferring that "she" be aborted, but more so that the mother's request be given legal recognition.

Re your "Two innocent lives alive today. Neither of who did anything wrong. Neither of whom should be killed or stigmatised", I'm not aware of anyone here calling for the death of the mother. Maybe you are referring to how the mother said that she would be at threat in her home country?

I believe that if the mother had been given the abortion she requested, she would have be very much "stigmatized" or "mark of Cain-ed" by Pro-lifers for her decision, and probably ditto for the medics if their identity was known to Pro-lifers.

aloyisious

hinault wrote: »

Their testimony isn't wrong.



Their testimony was given under oath.

The assertions of their testimony was cross examined in the United States Senate.

After the testimony was heard and cross examined, the United States Senate issued a report which stated

The mention of various lear-ned experts in human bio-chemistry gives their understanding as to when human life begins. I noted that amongst their quoted understandings was a mention of the very start, a reference to the start of the process. We have to recognize that that start (the spark of life, as it were) is completely different from the feotus growing within a woman's womb after several weeks, and again at several months and that a feotus is completely different from a baby.

I'd hazard a guess that if you would put my thesis to one or more of those lear-ned experts and ask them if it was correct in terms of their particular scientific expertise, they would probably agree. The testimony they gave is based on their learned scientific knowledge (I've hyphenated the word learned to give it's various meanings relevance where needed).

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I believe that if the mother had been given the abortion she requested, she would have be very much "stigmatized" or "mark of Cain-ed" by Pro-lifers for her decision, and probably ditto for the medics if their identity was known to Pro-lifers.

I don't think the pro choice camp have exactly been behind the door when it comes to attacking the medics here.....

aloyisious wrote: »

No, not in the way I suspect the obstetrician and/or other medical people may have used the wording of the guidelines to subvert the pregnant woman's requests for an abortion, whatever about stringing-out the length of time of the feotus's existence in her womb so they could tell her "sorry, we can't give you an abortion as the feotus is past the time we could do so", thereby getting them off whatever personal/ethical hooks they had about providing her with an abortion.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm assuming that the obstetrician was not 100% sure she was not a suicide risk, given that he felt there was a need to do a caesarean section operation to remove the feotus from her womb. A failure to take those obvious steps in the interval between her declaration that she would kill herself and her eventual agreement to the caesarean section operation would seem a little slipshod, unless there was a psychological re-evaluation of her state of mind to the effect that she was not likely to kill herself.

aloyisious wrote: »

The obstetrician took a personal decision to have the best of both world's, no abortion and a live baby... Her need's were NOT acceded-to by the obstetrician within the guidelines, using the same guidelines to deny her request, Catch-22 for her...It seem's to me that he/she took a gamble on the life of the mother and should therefore be removed from the panel forthwith.

aloyisious wrote: »

The information in the media reports state that the two psychiatrists on the abortion-request oversight panel believed the woman was at risk from suicide but that the third member, the obstetrician, allegedly had a different opinion, and the caesarean route was taken. Apparently no medical reason for it, but the two psychiatrists allegedly believed there was a suicidal risk to life of the woman, and consequently no full-term birth of the feotus. So why did the medics do what they did?

aloyisious

I find the thought that, just because one removes a cause of stress instigating thoughts of suicide (in this case, the feotus) that it automatically removes the thought of suicide from the disturbed mind. That's like saying just because you remove the food from the table (that for those seated there) it would remove the rumblings in their bellies or desires from their minds. I know my thoughts on this are double-edged, as we will only know if an abortion or a termination has had the desired effect of negating or removing the suicidal thoughts, by the person never again having or expressing such thoughts again.

aloyisious

There's an item on the Radio just now, the Sean O'Rourke programme, a discussion directly about this topic. Brenda Powers was one of the contributors and it got a bit personal and political at the end. A Govt TD (labour) was accused, along with that party, of introducing the bill concerned with the right to life last year for party political purposes. It'll probably take some time for RTE to put it on their podcast list, so I don't readily have the link to hand.

lazygal

Cora Sherlock was asking for an honest debate. Snigger.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the pro choice camp have exactly been behind the door when it comes to attacking the medics here.....

I'd have said that those were personal opinion statements about how humans react and respond to situations that place them in a quandary re their own personal ethics and fulfilments of their professional duties to patients under their care; almost as aggressive an attack as that on Dennis Healey by his opposite (conservative) number: quote-Dennis "It was like being savaged by a dead sheep"

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No laws were changed as a result of this testimony. The US legislature did precisely nothing as a result.

None of which contradicts the fact that life begins at conception.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

None of which contradicts the fact that life begins at conception.

What exactly proves life begins at conception? When does conception happen? Are frozen embryos life?

hinault

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So your whole line of reasoning, and I use that term lightly, is that when an organisation bases its membership criteria against a policy you hold it's censorship, but when you agree with an organisation's discrimination its not censorship.

It's a strange mentality that allows such mental corkscrew gyrations as this.

Any luck yet with locating that link that I asked you about yesterday, Shanahan?

And. Are candidates running for election required to agree with every single policy that their political party advocates? Really?

hinault

lazygal wrote: »

What exactly proves life begins at conception

The assertions made in the testimony to the United States Senate.

Loafing Oaf

hinault wrote: »

Any luck yet with locating that link that I asked you about yesterday, Shanahan?

And. Are candidates running for election required to agree with every single policy that their political party advocates? Really?

Not every last one obviously but surely parties have core principles that candidates must sign up to, otherwise they don't stand for anything...

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

That's like saying just because you remove the food from the table (that for those seated there) it would remove the rumblings in their bellies or desires from their minds.

In a way, I suppose this is a sign of how successful people have been in changing the common view of depression and related issues. Once, people thought everyone who was depressed, anxious and suicidal was just unable to cope with their problems. People have spent a long time and a lot of effort getting us to understand that depressed/anxious people may actually have a mental illness like clinical depression needing treatment, and are not just overwhelmed by some problem.

Here we see the opposite, the assumption that anyone with suicidal thoughts has an underlying condition. Not always true - sometimes people are unable to adjust to some event or situation, and get depressed/anxious and even suicidal as a result: they have an adjustment disorder, sometimes called situational depression.

Resolving the problem causing the stress can often fix them right up.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

The assertions made in the testimony to the United States Senate.

Which the US legislature did not bring into law, because they did not accept it.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

The assertions made in the testimony to the United States Senate.

But that evidence is 30 years old and comes from a prolife group. Are fertilized frozen embryos life?
Also maybe you could clarify whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn child in another country.

hinault

lazygal wrote: »

But that evidence is 30 years old and comes from a prolife group.

The testimony was given 30 years ago.

The evidence asserted in that testimony has not changed since then.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

None of which contradicts the fact that life begins at conception.

It contradicts your assertion that this testimony is irrefutable authority. The testimony was given to the US legislature in an attempt to convince them to change the constitution. The attempt failed because nobody bar a few extremists thinks that a fertilized egg is a human being with the same rights as me and you.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which the US legislature did not bring into law, because they did not accept it.

Read the United States Senate Report and read the part which says that the Senate accepts that the overwhelming evidence shows that conception is the start of human life.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It contradicts your assertion that this testimony is irrefutable authority

It contradicts nothing. The evidence remains irrefutible.

The evidence too is irrefutible that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Whether one chooses to travel the shortest distance between two points doesn't contradict the truth about what constitutes the shortest distance between two points.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

Read the United States Senate Report and read the part which says that the Senate accepts that the overwhelming evidence shows that conception is the start of human life.

Any evidence from a more recent source? Any comment on whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn?.