Abortion Discussion

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

So the witness were telling lies in their sworn public testimony? Is that your contention?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, United States Senate?
If so supply a link.

There was no evidence given. Biased physicians gave their opinion to a sub-committee who brought about the hearing to settle their religious lobbyists.

My contention is that your claim to authority has no reasonable grounding. You provided selected quotes from physicians brought to a hearing with the sole purpose of showing that, in their opinion, life began at conception. You look up every person you quoted, and the all had anti-abortion stances before the hearing. They were always going to say that, in their opinion, life began at conception.

Their opinion, which is 33 years old, and totally out of touch with modern medical science, can no longer be considered credible, if it could ever have been credible.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

That makes for a difference between a human life-form in a womb and human life (an independently-living birthed/born being) outside the womb.

If it is an established scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a live individual human being the same as you or me, why does the law not protect this being in the same terms as you or me? Why this special category of "unborn"?

In reality, it's because nobody thinks a fertilized egg is a full human being deserving all the rights and protections you have. Fertilize them, implant some, freeze the rest, chuck them away when no longer needed. They are potential humans only.

aloyisious

Throwing a wobbler seem's to be in order for the elders in both camps in media articles. This is part of an opinion-piece from Dr Ruth Cullen in the iIrish Times on 20 Aug..

The barely concealed logic of the pro-choice commentariat is as ugly as it gets: it is unjust and wrong for the baby to be alive now – the baby should have been killed weeks ago. This baby is an affront to reproductive rights and is the personification of a wrongful birth. The logic is chilling yet inevitable for those who support legal abortion. The only way to avoid facing up to it is to suppress acknowledgment of the child’s existence.

This is exactly what various journalists and Labour Party politicians have done over the past few days. The baby is a reminder to all who would listen that abortion is not a moral abstraction. It is a matter of deliberately destroying a small human life in the name of “choice” or, even more absurdly, “equality”.


ARTICLE link... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwhy-all-eyes-should-be-on-the-baby-who-survived-our-abortion-laws-1.1902926&ei=azj3U7vGLaLb7AblxYGADQ&usg=AFQjCNHfwIGzdxUl6nKrbxES-2EG5Ynd9g

It "popped-up" on screen when I googled to see "does a baby had more rights in Irish law than a fetus"

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

There was no evidence given.

For the second time of asking, were the witness telling lies in their sworn public testimony? Is that your contention?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?
If so supply a link

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

For the second time of asking, were the witness telling lies in their sworn public testimony? Is that your contention?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?
If so supply a link

Can you clarify whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn?

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

For the second time of asking, were the witness telling lies in their sworn public testimony?

I'm sure they were all good religious folk and would not lie under oath, but is perfectly possible for people to give evidence under oath and be mistaken.

We already gave you a good argument showing that they are mistaken. Saying every single human life begins at conception is wrong, because it cannot account for identical twins, where an extra human life appears days after conception.

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

For the second time of asking, were the witness telling lies in their sworn public testimony? Is that your contention?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?
If so supply a link

IT WASN'T ACCEPTED BY THE SENATE! A biased sub-committee accepted it, but the Senate didn't.

Swearing an oath in hearing does not mean you will tell the truth. You swear by your opinion. It was their opinion that life began at conception. The sub-committee, at the will of their religious lobbyists, agreed a report that accepted their opinion.

That does not make it fact.

The bill was never agreed upon by the Senate, why? Because it's own writer didn't believe in it. There was no evidential backing for it, medical or legal. The bill and the opinions it stood upon crumbled. They are not the opinions of modern medicine, and weren't the opinion of medicine as whole in 1981.

You can not be considered to be telling the truth or not when you do not present evidential backing to your claims. That is what happened in the hearing. There was no hard medical evidence to back the opinions of those you quoted.. Their opinions, by which they swore to stand by, had no medical grounding, apart from their own philosophy. And what connected all of their philosophies? They all opposed abortion long before the bill was ever created.

I can't link to contradictory evidence because there is no evidence to contradict. You did not provide any evidence, rather you quoted anti-abortion physicians as an appeal to authority, and expected it to be assumed as fact.

It. Is. Not.

aloyisious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nonsense: both the male and female gametes are alive and human before merging, so life or human life certainly does not begin at that point.

As I understand it, life began on the 25th of October, 4004 BCE, and human life on 27th, which I think was a Thursday.

Jeez, your first sentence had me worried for a while

Vivisectus

aloyisious wrote: »

Throwing a wobbler seem's to be in order for the elders in both camps in media articles. This is part of an opinion-piece from Dr Ruth Cullen in the iIrish Times on 20 Aug..

The barely concealed logic of the pro-choice commentariat is as ugly as it gets: it is unjust and wrong for the baby to be alive now – the baby should have been killed weeks ago. This baby is an affront to reproductive rights and is the personification of a wrongful birth. The logic is chilling yet inevitable for those who support legal abortion. The only way to avoid facing up to it is to suppress acknowledgment of the child’s existence.

This is exactly what various journalists and Labour Party politicians have done over the past few days. The baby is a reminder to all who would listen that abortion is not a moral abstraction. It is a matter of deliberately destroying a small human life in the name of “choice” or, even more absurdly, “equality”.


ARTICLE link... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwhy-all-eyes-should-be-on-the-baby-who-survived-our-abortion-laws-1.1902926&ei=azj3U7vGLaLb7AblxYGADQ&usg=AFQjCNHfwIGzdxUl6nKrbxES-2EG5Ynd9g

It "popped-up" on screen when I googled to see "does a baby had more rights in Irish law than a fetus"

Again, the essential fallacy comes peeking in.

The small clump of cells should have been aborted right at the beginning.

Aborting at 24 weeks is a different matter.

But by all means continue to pretend that I can put out a fire by taking away someone's matches.

Vivisectus

Hey, but now that we know that "things people have said under oath in senatorial subcommitees" are incontrovertible facts, which can only be trumped by MORE things people have said under similar circumstances, does this not give us a veritable treasure-trove of absolute facts to work with?

for instance:

from the army-McCarthy hearings wrote:

Senator McCarthy. Will counsel [i.e. Welch] for my benefit define – I think he might be an expert on that – what a pixie is?
Mr. Welch. Yes. I should say, Mr. Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. (Laughter from the chamber) Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?
Senator McCarthy. As I said, I think you may be an authority on what a pixie is.[this quote needs a citation]

There we have it. FACT.

Cabaal

Didn't Clinton also say under oath that he didn't have sexual relations with that women?

FACT, he didn't have any sexual relations with Monica.

oath = meaningless

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

IT WASN'T ACCEPTED BY THE SENATE!

The record of the United States Senate states that the sworn public oral evidence was overwhelming and that the United States Senate accepts the veracity of the evidence given.

You should contact the United States Senate telling them that their acceptance of the evidence was wrong because the witnesses were not telling the truth.

Nodin

hinault wrote: »

The record of the United States Senate states that the sworn public oral evidence was overwhelming and that the United States Senate accepts the veracity of the evidence given.

You should contact the United States Senate telling them that their acceptance of the evidence was wrong because the witnesses were not telling the truth.

You've a source for that, I trust?

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

The record of the United States Senate states that the oral evidence was overwhelming and that the United States Senate accepts the veracity of the evidence given.

No it does not.

From the American Journal of Nursing, printed in 1981.

Summary and Status of HR 900, the bill in question.

And, summary and status of S.158, the wider form of the bill in question.

At no point did the United States Senate accept the evidence given. A sub-committee accepted it, and it did not move any further due to lack of evidence and support from it's own writer and cosponsors.

Now, seeing as you love asking for evidence, please provide a link which shows that the United States Senate, not a sub committee therein, accepted the "evidence" and premiss of HR 900 or S.158.

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

At no point did the United States Senate accept the evidence given. A United States Senate sub-committee accepted it,

I agree with this.

You agree that the United States Senate subcommittee is a panel of United States senators?

Vivisectus

Hmmm... so in the light of what we now know about the infallability of things people say in front of senatorial subcommittees, what are the ramifications of this:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/09/elmo-testifies-before-congress.html

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

I agree with this.

You agree that the United States Senate subcommittee is a panel of United States senators?

Yes. It was a panel of lobbied Senators who attended the hearing at the request of their conservative religious lobbyists.

Do you rescind your claim that the opinion of the physicians was accepted by the US Senate?

Nodin

hinault wrote: »

I agree with this.

You agree that the United States Senate subcommittee is a panel of United States senators?

It is not the US senate. You stated

..............record of the United States Senate states that the sworn public oral evidence was overwhelming and that the United States Senate accepts the veracity of the evidence given.

wheres your source?

hinault

Nodin wrote: »

It is not the US senate.

United States Senate subcommittee, a committee with United States Senators, is not the United States Senate?

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

Do you rescind your claim that the opinion of the physicians was accepted by the US Senate?

Do you rescind your claim that the witnesses were not telling the truth to the United States Senate?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?

Nodin

hinault wrote: »

United States Senate subcommittee, a committee with United States Senators, is not the United States Senate?

No, it most certainly is not. 5 TD's are not the Dail. The minister for agriculture is not the government, a GAA sub committee is not the GAA governing body.

Are you going to produce a source showing where the -

..............record of the United States Senate states that the sworn
public oral evidence was overwhelming and that the United States Senate accepts the veracity of the evidence given.

robindch

Ladies and gentlemen; Boys and girls.

This is the abortion discussion thread. Please feel free to open up another thread to discuss whatever it is that you're discussing.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

United States Senate subcommittee, a committee with United States Senators, is not the United States Senate?

Correct. The Senate has 100 members, so a vote would be 51-49 or like that.

4-0 shows that only a tiny minority of the Senate were present in this subcommittee.

In any event, you are barking up a dead tree. Nobody in Ireland 2014 gives a rat's ass what the US Senate voted on in 1981.

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

United States Senate subcommittee, a committee with United States Senators, is not the United States Senate?

No it is not.

hinault wrote: »

Do you rescind your claim that the witnesses were not telling the truth to the United States Senate?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?

Did you even read what I typed? There was no medical evidence, it was not accepted by the Senate, they swore only by their opinion and not by the validity of their opinion.

You can not claim opinion as fact. Conjecture is not true or false as it is given by a person. It's validity can be challenged, and it has.

kylith

hinault wrote: »

Do you rescind your claim that the witnesses were not telling the truth to the United States Senate?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?

They gave their honest opinions. This does not mean that their opinions were correct.

Until recently it was believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. We now know that they are caused by a bacterial imbalance. This does not mean that doctors 10 years ago were lying to their patients.

Can you honestly not tell the difference between lying and being incorrect?

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

It's validity can be challenged, and it has.

Challenged in sworn public testimony?
I'd be very interested in reading a link to same, assuming you can link such testimony, at the third time of asking.

_rebelkid

robindch wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen; Boys and girls.

This is the abortion discussion thread. Please feel free to open up another thread to discuss whatever it is that you're discussing.

It's a bill which was designed by the American Anti-Abortion Lobby to define life as beginning at conception, which if carried into Law, would have been used to define abortion as a criminal act.

Hinault used the testimony from a hearing by a sub-committee as "proof" that life begins at conception. As ridiculous a claim it is, I think clearing up it's ridiculousness would be relevant to the Abortion topic as a whole.

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

Challenged in sworn public testimony?
I'd be very interested in reading a link to same, assuming you can link such testimony, at the third time of asking.

What does sworn public testimony have to do with anything? They gave their opinion, they did not state fact. There is nothing sworn to other than conjecture.

I have provided links to show that the biased testimony to biased senators was not relevant, and is not relevant to the topic of abortion. The Bill had no grounding, which in consequence, removed grounding from the testimony. It is opinion based on outdated medical knowledge, and is not considerable in modern medicine.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

I'd be very interested in reading a link to same

I'd be very interested in reading how you resolve the contradiction between the sworn testimony, which states that each single human life begins at conception, with the fact that a single fertilized egg can give rise to identical twins.

You remember, the fact that was pointed out to you before you posted this mistaken testimony?

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

What does sworn public testimony have to do with anything?

I'm asking you if you can supply a link to sworn public testimony which states that conception is not the start of human life. Can you supply even one link, at the fourth time of asking?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical oral evidence presented?