Abortion Discussion

aloyisious

Maybe he's still shocked at his self-discovery that he's not a christian, is not involved in religion or religiosity. I certainly assumed he was, to some degree, a believer in some religion, given his declarations on the abortion topic. Maybe he's just a person who believe's in the sanctity of human life.... period. If he's not, I have to assume he's smiling somewhere, busy googling or preparing a response to the last few posts.

Cabaal

gaynorvader wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't want to answer the question. If that is the case though, it would be polite to say as much.

Oh yeah, if he doesn't want to answer it he can just clearly say he doesn't wish to give an answer to this.

Until then it looks like he's dodging it because it'll undermine his argument that life begins at conception

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh yeah, if he doesn't want to answer it he can just clearly say he doesn't wish to give an answer to this.

If he could get past this conundrum, I'd believe in miracles

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Jimi, it's about the 7th time been asked this now and you've ignored it each time. What is you're position on the morning after pill?

In the absence of any reply one way or the other, it's probably fair to conclude that Jimi has no fixed opinion on the morning-after pill.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of any reply one way or the other, it's probably fair to conclude that Jimi has no fixed opinion on the morning-after pill.

Or that, like the question re: state funding of the Military, it is one that he does not wish to address as it may highlight some...contradictions...in his stated position re: vital importance of preserving every unique human life.

JimiTime

Hi Guys.
To answer some of the questions you see as important (I just see them as you guys trying to create a box for me, rather than deal with the issue of killing developing humans. As even if you believe I'm a hypocrite or whatever, the fact still remains that abortion ends the life of ones own offspring by killing them in utero)

1 I'm not a Roman Catholic
2 As far as I'm aware, it is not known what the Morning after pill does, but some believe it stops a fertilised egg implanting. I would side with caution, and disagree with its use.
3. I agree with the death penalty in principal for certain things, and as much as I hate the idea of war, I understand the need in this world to have a military to protect a nation from aggression.

Sarky

And are you ashamed of anything at all you've posted in this thread?

Corkfeen

You support the death penalty in certain circumstances and consider yourself pro life? Erm, this doesn't compute....

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

Hi Guys.
To answer some of the questions you see as important (I just see them as you guys trying to create a box for me, rather than deal with the issue of killing developing humans. As even if you believe I'm a hypocrite or whatever, the fact still remains that abortion ends the life of ones own offspring by killing them in utero)

1 I'm not a Roman Catholic
2 As far as I'm aware, it is not known what the Morning after pill does, but some believe it stops a fertilised egg implanting. I would side with caution, and disagree with its use.
3. I agree with the death penalty in principal for certain things, and as much as I hate the idea of war, I understand the need in this world to have a military to protect a nation from aggression.

Thank you for the answers! I was wondering if I could bother you for another. What do you think should happen to a woman who gets an abortion? Should she be punished, what do you think it should be?

JimiTime

Corkfeen wrote: »

You support the death penalty in certain circumstances and consider yourself pro life? Erm, this doesn't compute....

Actually, I consider every reasonable person as pro-life, including a lot of those who are for abortion being legal. I don't associate myself with the term (unless its just for ease, so people just recognise it as I'm anti-abortion)

As for the death penalty, I believe it actually puts value on a persons life I.E. The innocent victims life. I believe it is a great mercy, and not an entitlement or right that a murderer be allowed keep his own life.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, I consider every reasonable person as pro-life, including a lot of those who are for abortion being legal. I don't associate myself with the term (unless its just for ease, so people just recognise it as I'm anti-abortion)

As for the death penalty, I believe it actually puts value on a persons life I.E. The innocent victims life. I believe it is a great mercy, and not an entitlement or right that a murderer be allowed keep his own life.

Yup, pretty much everyone's pro-life and pro-choice.

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote: »

Thank you for the answers! I was wondering if I could bother you for another. What do you think should happen to a woman who gets an abortion? Should she be punished, what do you think it should be?

If it is legal, then obviously the issue is with the state not the woman. I think the important thing is to tackle the issues as to what we can do as a society and state to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I would have no desire in the world we live in, to see women being charged for having abortions.

lazygal

JimiTime wrote: »

If it is legal, then obviously the issue is with the state not the woman. I think the important thing is to tackle the issues as to what we can do as a society and state to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I would have no desire in the world we live in, to see women being charged for having abortions.

What's the difference between a woman who has an abortion and someone who's killed a born person and faces the death penalty in your eyes?

Sarky

How do you square all these massively conflicting views in your own head, without it breaking down into the total farce of contradictions it is?

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

If it is legal, then obviously the issue is with the state not the woman. I think the important thing is to tackle the issues as to what we can do as a society and state to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I would have no desire in the world we live in, to see women being charged for having abortions.

Do you then think we should work on preventing the conditions leading to murderers? Do you also think we should not charge people for murdering others?

maguic24

JimiTime wrote: »

Hi Guys.
To answer some of the questions you see as important (I just see them as you guys trying to create a box for me, rather than deal with the issue of killing developing humans. As even if you believe I'm a hypocrite or whatever, the fact still remains that abortion ends the life of ones own offspring by killing them in utero)

1 I'm not a Roman Catholic
2 As far as I'm aware, it is not known what the Morning after pill does, but some believe it stops a fertilised egg implanting. I would side with caution, and disagree with its use.
3. I agree with the death penalty in principal for certain things, and as much as I hate the idea of war, I understand the need in this world to have a military to protect a nation from aggression.

THANK YOU! Yes, as far as I'm aware it delays implantation, however, if the egg hasn't been fertilised then nothing happens. I stand to be corrected.

YumCha

JimiTime wrote: »

2 As far as I'm aware, it is not known what the Morning after pill does, but some believe it stops a fertilised egg implanting. I would side with caution, and disagree with its use.

If you really believe life starts at fertilisation, as opposed to implantation, then are you also opposed to all of the following:
- IVF treatment
- Treatment for ectopic pregnancies
- Methods of contraception which could potentially cause a fertilised egg to not implant (IUDs for example)
- All those couples trying for kids who are creating fertilised eggs which don't implant naturally (or wait, divinely in your case)

I am aware of the futility of using logic here, but a couple more questions:
- Do you consider judgment of other people to be a sin? If so, are you ashamed of your contributions to this thread?
- What is your stance on the doctrine of free will? Specifically, how do you justify enforcing your morals on others when even God took a backseat to interfering a la Adam and Eve.

aloyisious

My understanding is that the morning-after pill is designed/engineered/intended to stop any chance of fertilization of an egg by sperm, thus preventing the first stage of human reproduction being started. If there is no foetus, there can be no abortion.

IMO, the issue of killing another human being, and punishment for that, is another issue NOT relevant to this thread, particularly in reference to the DF (or even that other arm-of-state, the GS) as that is about taking the life of walking talking humans to save other walking talking humans, acts sanctioned by our state on behalf of us tax-paying citizens. For example, not many would have been crying if the GS had killed the gang members in Cork two days ago if they had used fire-arms to try and succeed in their crime attempts.

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote: »

Do you then think we should work on preventing the conditions leading to murderers? Do you also think we should not charge people for murdering others?

I don't equate abortion with murder. I think such language is probably unhelpful. Though in cases like the Gosnell scenario, it is no doubt murder or infanticide to be more precise.

JimiTime

YumCha wrote: »

If you really believe life starts at fertilisation, as opposed to implantation, then are you also opposed to all of the following:
- IVF treatment
- Treatment for ectopic pregnancies
- Methods of contraception which could potentially cause a fertilised egg to not implant (IUDs for example)
- All those couples trying for kids who are creating fertilised eggs which don't implant naturally (or wait, divinely in your case)

I am aware of the futility of using logic here, but a couple more questions:
- Do you consider judgment of other people to be a sin? If so, are you ashamed of your contributions to this thread?
- What is your stance on the doctrine of free will? Specifically, how do you justify enforcing your morals on others when even God took a backseat to interfering a la Adam and Eve.

just to let you know, if I see anyone being a d1ck, like in your case, I simply ignore them. Just so you know in case you are waiting for an answer

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't equate abortion with murder.

What the hell have you been blathering on about shame for then? If it isn't murder in your view (as it isn't in mine), then where DO you stand? You have consistently banged on about the full human rights of the embryo from conception, so if you don't call killing one of them deliberately as murder, what do you call it?

Your views seem to be all over the place mate.

robindch

YumCha wrote: »

I am aware of the futility of using logic here [...]

JimiTime wrote: »

just to let you know, if I see anyone being a d1ck, like in your case, I simply ignore them.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, put your excitable little fisties back into your pocketses and go sit outside for a few minutes.

kylith

aloyisious wrote: »

My understanding is that the morning-after pill is designed/engineered/intended to stop any chance of fertilization of an egg by sperm, thus preventing the first stage of human reproduction being started. If there is no foetus, there can be no abortion.

If the egg has been fertilised then the MAP will prevent it from implanting into the womb. No foetus is created, but a blastocyst might be. Where do you stand on blastocyst rights?

Obliq

kylith wrote: »

If the egg has been fertilised then the MAP will prevent it from implanting into the womb. No foetus is created, but a blastocyst might be. Where do you stand on blastocyst rights?

Yes, where? That might go some way towards answering where you stand on IVF too?

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

What the hell have you been blathering on about shame for then? If it isn't murder in your view (as it isn't in mine), then where DO you stand? You have consistently banged on about the full human rights of the embryo from conception, so if you don't call killing one of them deliberately as murder, what do you call it?

Your views seem to be all over the place mate.

All of your above is nothing I've said. I have said that a developing human should not be subject to death at the behest of its mother, father etc. That a developing human should have a right to develop uninterrupted, and that I wished that people realised truly what they were destroying. I don't have a name for it. I don't think someone who has an abortion is a danger to society etc. There is usually some reasoning as to how its not a 'person' until such and such a time etc. So its more that people who have abortions don't believe they are killing a person or somesuch. The personhood argument is not something I'm interested in. The fact is, that ones offspring is created when a child is conceived. I don't believe in the conversation, 'Up to which point should we be allowed kill our offspring'. Like I have reiterated, the 2 children I have (And the one on the way in 2 months please God :eek: ) began when they were conceived. At that moment it was set that they were girls or boys etc. I don't see any reasoning that can say we should be allowed destroy them somewhere on their lifes journey (Obvious unfortunate exceptions like ectopic pregnancy etc aside).
My position is as concise as it comes tbh.

eviltwin

JimiTime wrote: »

All of your above is nothing I've said. I have said that a developing human should not be subject to death at the behest of its mother, father etc. That a developing human should have a right to develop uninterrupted, and that I wished that people realised truly what they were destroying. I don't have a name for it. I don't think someone who has an abortion is a danger to society etc. There is usually some reasoning as to how its not a 'person' until such and such a time etc. So its more that people who have abortions don't believe they are killing a person or somesuch. The personhood argument is not something I'm interested in. The fact is, that ones offspring is created when a child is conceived. I don't believe in the conversation, 'Up to which point should we be allowed kill our offspring'. Like I have reiterated, the 2 children I have (And the one on the way in 2 months please God :eek: ) began when they were conceived. At that moment it was set that they were girls or boys etc. I don't see any reasoning that can say we should be allowed destroy them somewhere on their lifes journey (Obvious unfortunate exceptions like ectopic pregnancy etc aside).
My position is as concise as it comes tbh.

If its not murder, what is it then? You can't have it both ways.

swampgas

JimiTime wrote: »

<...>
The fact is, that ones offspring is created when a child is conceived. I don't believe in the conversation, 'Up to which point should we be allowed kill our offspring'. Like I have reiterated, the 2 children I have (And the one on the way in 2 months please God :eek: ) began when they were conceived. At that moment it was set that they were girls or boys etc. I don't see any reasoning that can say we should be allowed destroy them somewhere on their lifes journey (Obvious unfortunate exceptions like ectopic pregnancy etc aside).

I think as humans we like to avoid ambiguity, unfortunately reality and biology are messy and there are lots of grey areas. Nature doesn't attribute any special attributes to fertilized eggs, but many people (like yourself) try to assign the same value to such an egg as they do to a child or adult.

I suspect that when you think of a fertilized egg you jump ahead in time and see one of your children, and want to protect the fertilized egg the same way you might a grown child. In reality though, there is no grown child - not yet, and maybe never. There is only potential, and a potential child is a very different thing and should not be equated with actual child.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

All of your above is nothing I've said.....

My position is as concise as it comes tbh.

MY question was concise. Your answer is anything but.


Example of how your answer could have been more concise:

"I have said that a developing human should not be subject to death at the behest of its mother, father etc." .... An embryo/blastocyst should not be deliberately killed.

If you think that there is a difference between murdering a human and killing an embryo, perhaps you could explain this difference to us? Without fudging of the question or the answer would be much appreciated, thanks.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I have said that a developing human should not be subject to death at the behest of its mother, father etc. That a developing human should have a right to develop uninterrupted, and that I wished that people realised truly what they were destroying. I don't have a name for it.

There are the four conditions that define "murder": deliberate killing/of a human being/by a human being/with malice aforethought. Your position thus far has indicated that you think abortion fulfils each one of these criteria, so why the hesitation to label it "murder" (in your personal opinion)?

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think someone who has an abortion is a danger to society etc.

If you don't think someone who has an abortion is a danger to society at large (although you must be thinking that they are a potential danger to other future members of society?), then you don't account for the need to remove them from society in their punishment. It still doesn't render them innocent of the crime. Which is what?

JimiTime wrote: »

There is usually some reasoning as to how its not a 'person' until such and such a time etc. So its more that people who have abortions don't believe they are killing a person or somesuch.

So do you think it's "murder" but with mitigating factors? Perhaps people who have abortions have some kind of mental incapacity, thus they can't be held fully responsible for their actions? Or perhaps they are psychopathic, and should be sectioned?

I would add that I will not get indignant at any answers you give. I have basically given you the green light to call me a psychopthic murderer, if that's what you really think. It would be unfair to object if you chose to accept such an invitation.

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

There are the four conditions that define "murder": deliberate killing/of a human being/by a human being/with malice aforethought. Your position thus far has indicated that you think abortion fulfils each one of these criteria, so why the hesitation to label it "murder" (in your personal opinion)?


If you don't think someone who has an abortion is a danger to society at large (although you must be thinking that they are a potential danger to other future members of society?), then you don't account for the need to remove them from society in their punishment. It still doesn't render them innocent of the crime. Which is what?


So do you think it's "murder" but with mitigating factors? Perhaps people who have abortions have some kind of mental incapacity, thus they can't be held fully responsible for their actions? Or perhaps they are psychopathic, and should be sectioned?

I would add that I will not get indignant at any answers you give. I have basically given you the green light to call me a psychopthic murderer, if that's what you really think. It would be unfair to object if you chose to accept such an invitation.

Temporary insanity perhaps? Though I don't think such a plea would work when so much premeditation is needed to carry out the deed.

JimiTime wrote:

I don't equate abortion with murder. I think such language is probably unhelpful. Though in cases like the Gosnell scenario, it is no doubt murder or infanticide to be more precise.

The deliberate taking of a human life? Either that's (somehow) not murder or an embryo is not a human life or abortion is murder.