Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
1…9293959798…124

Comments

  • Options
    #2822
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    What right has anyone to prevent already existing human life from further brain development, never mind terminating it ?

    Well for a start, if all foetus are not to be impeded from developing that means all frozen embryos must be implanted ASAP. That is not something that I can support, much like I don't support forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.

    One consequence of this is that it means it stops a person coming into existence. But until we can transplant embyros to another womb, I can't see any way of avoiding that scenario.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #2823
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Delirium wrote: »
    Well for a start, if all foetus are not to be impeded from developing that means all frozen embryos must be implanted ASAP. That is not something that I can support, much like I don't support forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.

    One consequence of this is that it means it stops a person coming into existence. But until we can transplant embyros to another womb, I can't see any way of avoiding that scenario.

    You've jumped back from 26 weeks, to 13 weeks, to 5 weeks, and now to frozen embryo's.

    The actual question you were asked, and keep avoiding, is about all unborn children :

    Again, what right has anyone to prevent already existing human life from further brain development, never mind terminating it ?


  • Options
    #2824
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    You've jumped back from 26 weeks, to 13 weeks, to 5 weeks, and now to frozen embryo's.

    The actual question you were asked, and keep avoiding, is about all unborn children :

    Again, what right has anyone to prevent already existing human life from further brain development, never mind terminating it ?

    Freedom of conscience. Not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg is a person, so why should we impose one groups perspective on the other? I'm merely advocating that people, be they pro-life or pro-choice, have the freedom to follow their own conscience with regards to having an abortion.

    And what does it matter what stage of development I reference given that you view them all as the same with regard to abortion?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #2825
    130Kph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 625 ✭✭✭130Kph


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Again, what right has anyone to prevent already existing human life from further brain development, never mind terminating it ?
    This is the same as asking:

    What right do homo sapiens have to reproduce sexually?
    The answer is:- every right.
    What right has the rain to fall from clouds :confused:

    A pregnant woman is 100% sovereign (well, she is in a civilised society).

    What right does even the most moderate pro-lifer have to coerce anyone into remaining pregnant against their wish?


  • Options
    #2826
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Delirium wrote: »
    Freedom of conscience. Not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg is a person, so why should we impose one groups perspective on the other? I'm merely advocating that people, be they pro-life or pro-choice, have the freedom to follow their own conscience with regards to having an abortion.

    And what does it matter what stage of development I reference given that you view them all as the same with regard to abortion?

    Human life is human life, it doesn't matter when you try to get away with terminating it for doing nothing wrong other than daring to exist, or how you dress it up. Either you respect others rights to human life or you don't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2827
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    130Kph wrote: »

    A pregnant woman is 100% sovereign (well, she is in a civilised society).

    And when society also see's through the medieval practice of abortion for what it is, the extermination of unborn children and human life, then it'll be truly civilized.


  • Options
    #2828
    frag420
    Registered Users Posts: 6,158 ✭✭✭frag420


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    And when society also see's through the medieval practice of abortion for what it is, the extermination of unborn children and human life, then it'll be truly civilized.

    Been happening long before the medieval period....


  • Options
    #2829
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    frag420 wrote: »
    Been happening long before the medieval period....

    So why does that make something ok ?


  • Options
    #2830
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Human life is human life, it doesn't matter when you try to get away with terminating it for doing nothing wrong other than daring to exist, or how you dress it up. Either you respect others rights to human life or you don't.

    A 1 day old foetus is not an "other", it has yet to develop into an "other".

    People disagree with your assertion that a human being exists from fertilisation, and you don't respect their right to Freedom of Conscience. You want all pregnant women to be legally compelled to live according to your worldview.

    How is that respecting those womens human rights?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #2831
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    And when society also see's through the medieval practice of abortion for what it is, the extermination of unborn children and human life, then it'll be truly civilized.

    and yet ironically as nations become more civilized, they remove restrictions to abortion. Would seem to contradict your notion that it's the uncivilzed that engage in abortion.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2832
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Delirium wrote: »
    and yet ironically as nations become more civilized, they remove restrictions to abortion. Would seem to contradict your notion that it's the uncivilzed that engage in abortion.

    What someone should do (I don't have time right now, but might tomorrow) is compile two lists of countries. One list where abortion is allowed and one where it isn't. Then we can look at those lists and see which one we think is more civilised. Not very scientific, I know, but could be interesting. I suspect that, with a few exceptions Ireland won't be in exalted company.

    MrP


  • Options
    #2833
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    MrPudding wrote: »
    What someone should do (I don't have time right now, but might tomorrow) is compile two lists of countries. One list where abortion is allowed and one where it isn't. Then we can look at those lists and see which one we think is more civilised. Not very scientific, I know, but could be interesting. I suspect that, with a few exceptions Ireland won't be in exalted company.

    MrP

    http://worldabortionlaws.com/

    The abortion map shows in red the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws, orange is abortion is certain circumstances and green is on demand....we have some interesting company on team red and we stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of Europe


  • Options
    #2834
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,772 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    So you define "personhood" as citizenship ?

    That's an oversimplification: personhood is a required definition to begun discussions about naturalization or citizenship. They aren't the same thing. If you're more curious about this, the legal eagles in the LD forum are better resources than I and could go into the details for you. It would be bizarre to assume I define personhood as citizenship, as in order to attain citizenship you must as a basic tenet be a person to qualify.
    frag420 wrote: »
    Been happening long before the medieval period....
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    So why does that make something ok ?

    You know, I ask myself the same question about religion frequently.


  • Options
    #2835
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Delirium wrote: »
    A 1 day old foetus is not an "other", it has yet to develop into an "other".

    People disagree with your assertion that a human being exists from fertilisation, and you don't respect their right to Freedom of Conscience. You want all pregnant women to be compelled to life according to your worldview.

    How is that respecting those women's human rights

    Human life factually and biologically exists from fertilisation, it doesn't matter who tries to deny and / or hide that biological reality and biological fact.

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
    Delirium wrote: »
    you don't respect their right to Freedom of Conscience.

    That isn't correct, what is correct is I'm honest enough to acknowledge that there are two human lives involved not one, and freedom of conscience doesn't endow the right to kill another human life.

    Delirium wrote: »
    How is that respecting those womens human rights?

    How do you truthfully respect the right of any human life, when you aren't prepared to respect them at all stages of their life ?


  • Options
    #2836
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Delirium wrote: »
    and yet ironically as nations become more civilized, they remove restrictions to abortion. Would seem to contradict your notion that it's the uncivilzed that engage in abortion.

    And yet we all know that abortion is nothing new in the history of the world, As nations evolved to becoming more civilized they brought in laws against killing unborn children in their mothers womb, as they slip back towards eventual destruction, they'll remove them. There's no better way for a warped civilisation to self exterminate, than to start insidiously promote the extermination of their own young when they are at their most vulnerable and defenceless. It'll make a good history lesson when it has to be explained in the future to a more developed human civilization, that previous human civilizations used to actually advocate killing their young in the womb.


  • Options
    #2837
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,772 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Human life factually and biologically exists from fertilisation, it doesn't matter who tries to deny and / or hide that biological reality and biological fact.

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
    Quotes some rather old sources in the bibliography, anyway here's a refuting source:

    http://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

    And anyway, fertilization still doesn't resolve the matter of personhood. As for the latter half of your statement, that's a logical fallacy trying to shut the door on any counter-argument. Also, its completely contrary to scientific method - which always allows for new information to completely obliterate prior assumptions - which is the thing you're trying to use to make your argument: science.
    How do you truthfully respect the right of any human life, when you aren't prepared to respect them at all stages of their life ?

    I don't give beer to children..


  • Options
    #2838
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,772 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    And yet we all know that abortion is nothing new in the history of the world, As nations evolved to becoming more civilized they brought in laws against killing unborn children in their mothers womb, as they slip back towards eventual destruction, they'll remove them. There's no better way for a warped civilisation to self exterminate, than to start insidiously promote the extermination of their own young when they are at their most vulnerable and defenceless. It'll make a good history lesson when it has to be explained in the future to a more developed human civilization, that previous human civilizations used to actually advocate killing their young in the womb.

    That may well be but not for the reason you think: we may simply reach a point where we can augment the human sexuality to fully control when/when we do not inseminate or release an ovum; we will have a willful control over our reproduction which will make the practice of abortion, one day, obsolete.


  • Options
    #2839
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Human life factually and biologically exists from fertilisation, it doesn't matter who tries to deny and / or hide that biological reality and biological fact.

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
    Nothing in that link contradicts my assertion that a fertilized egg is a human being.
    That isn't correct, what is correct is I'm honest enough to acknowledge that there are two human lives involved not one, and freedom of conscience doesn't endow the right to kill another human life.
    Actually it is correct, you want legal banning of abortion and those that don't share your perspective have to live under such a law. That's almost a dictionary definition of opposing Freedom of Conscience.
    How do you truthfully respect the right of any human life, when you aren't prepared to respect them at all stages of their life ?
    We haven't established that a human being exists from fertilisation.

    I'll give you a real world example where your assertion seems down right nutty.

    A relative of mine and his girlfriend were trying to have kids. One day she tests herself and, lo, she is pregnant. So, from your POV, she is now carrying a human being.

    Things seem to be going well until she is in for a routine checkup and the doctor is concerned with some of the results.

    She's admitted to hospital for further tests. Tests reveal the foetus hasn't developed properly. No organs or limbs have developed. It essentially has more in common with a water balloon than a human being.

    That is part of the reason that I don't believe a human being exists from fertilisation. Can you explain to me why the above is to be considered a human being? If not, then when did it stop being a human being?

    La Fenetre wrote: »
    And yet we all know that abortion is nothing new in the history of the world, As nations evolved to becoming more civilized they brought in laws against killing unborn children in their mothers womb, as they slip back towards eventual destruction, they'll remove them. There's no better way for a warped civilisation to self exterminate, than to start insidiously promote the extermination of their own young when they are at their most vulnerable and defenceless. It'll make a good history lesson when it has to be explained in the future to a more developed human civilization, that previous human civilizations used to actually advocate killing their young in the womb.

    Nobody is promoting the extermination of the young. Seriously, you think pro-choice advocates are promoting extinction of the human race??

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #2840
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,772 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    still accurate

    http://mic.com/articles/129542/here-s-why-george-carlin-s-1996-rant-on-pro-life-conservatives-still-rings-true?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=WHFacebook&ts_pid=962&utm_content=inf_10_285_2&tse_id=INF_1a726a8b2aab4781afd697f423afdb16#.vtG3nCUrn


  • Options
    #2841
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,772 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    PP funding passes in the year end spending bill without modifications, despite pushes to end federal level funding or curtail it.

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/263667-deflated-conservatives-eye-new-strategy-in-planned-parenthood-fight


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2842
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Delirium wrote: »

    We haven't established that a human being exists from fertilisation.

    That is part of the reason that I don't believe a human being exists from fertilisation. Can you explain to me why the above is to be considered a human being? If not, then when did it stop being a human being

    All humans start their existence as a fertilised human egg.

    From those who are conceived naturally to those eggs fertilised via IVF.

    There is no other way for a human to commence their existence other than as a fertilised human egg.

    Therefore I believe a fertilised human egg is human, it is a human being in its most basic undeveloped state.


  • Options
    #2843
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

    Again, no proof in videos of any illegal activities and videos are putting people in danger.


  • Options
    #2844
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,495 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ABC101 wrote: »
    All humans start their existence as a fertilised human egg.

    From those who are conceived naturally to those eggs fertilised via IVF.

    There is no other way for a human to commence their existence other than as a fertilised human egg.

    Therefore I believe a fertilised human egg is human, it is a human being in its most basic undeveloped state.
    So should we close down all IVF clinics immediately then? Or at least force them to stop selecting from among the embryos any particular cycle has given, and instead make them implant all of them into women rather than choosing to pour any superfluous embryos down the drain?

    Why don't all IVF embryos have a right to life?


  • Options
    #2845
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So should we close down all IVF clinics immediately then? Or at least force them to stop selecting from among the embryos any particular cycle has given, and instead make them implant all of them into women rather than choosing to pour any superfluous embryos down the drain?

    Why don't all IVF embryos have a right to life?

    I never commented that IVF embryos don't have a right to life, or suggested that women be impregnated against their will. I don't recall any body else suggesting that either.


  • Options
    #2846
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,772 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    or suggested that women be impregnated against their will.
    That's how many would view an unplanned pregnancy.


  • Options
    #2847
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ABC101 wrote: »
    All humans start their existence as a fertilised human egg.

    From those who are conceived naturally to those eggs fertilised via IVF.

    There is no other way for a human to commence their existence other than as a fertilised human egg.

    Therefore I believe a fertilised human egg is human, it is a human being in its most basic undeveloped state.

    And does that mean then that you think the embryo/foetus should be protected from fertilisation?

    What is your stance on IVF?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #2848
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Overheal wrote: »
    That's how many would view an unplanned pregnancy.


    If the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction of the species.

    It should not come as a surprise to anybody if on having engaged in intercourse there is a chance of a pregnancy occurring.

    Abortion can be seen by some advocates as another method of contraception, when the other methods have failed or not been used correctly etc.


  • Options
    #2849
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Delirium wrote: »
    And does that mean then that you think the embryo/foetus should be protected from fertilisation?

    What is your stance on IVF?


    If you accept the fact that a fertilized human egg is a human in its most basic form physically, then technically it stands to reason it should be protected by law.


  • Options
    #2850
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ABC101 wrote: »
    If you accept the fact that a fertilized human egg is a human in its most basic form physically, then technically it stands to reason it should be protected by law.

    I'd dispute that it is 'fact'.

    Anyways, does that mean you think IVF ,the morning after pill, abortion pill should all be illegal since a fertilised egg should be protected by law?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2851
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Delirium wrote: »
    I'd dispute that it is 'fact'.

    Anyways, does that mean you think IVF ,the morning after pill, abortion pill should all be illegal since a fertilised egg should be protected by law?

    Most abortion advocates ignore / dismiss facts which they deem to be inconvenient to their logic / reasoning.

    Abortion is about the destruction of a human being, IVF is about the creation of a human being.


    May I ask you ..... when do you believe a human is a human?


Advertisement