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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

1…111112114116117…334

Comments

  • #3392
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    So again, you think supporting abortion is actually all about anti religion and anti-constitution, rather than considering the fundamental right to human life, and without religion and constitutions someone cannot / should not respect it ? There's me thinking abortion was about abortion.

    Look if people were content to fulminate against abortion in the privacy of their own homes and churches there wouldn't be a problem. It's because it's enshrined in the law and constitution applying to people of all religions and none that it's such a a major issue in Ireland. And the reason that is so can only be understood in the context of the overwhelming power of the Catholic Church in the past...


  • #3393
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    smacl wrote: »
    No, this is my considered opinion as being pro-choice for a number of decades.

    So again, your support of abortion seems to be based on anti religion, and you think some people need religion to respect another human life at any stage ? Are you one of them ?
    smacl wrote: »
    The only apparent basis for your support for abortion is that it is against a certain religion ? Really ? and it isn't possible for you to respect human life at it's most vulnerable and fragile without religion ? Again I can't see how you require religion for that.

    The bizarre notion that a freshly implanted foetus is actually a person in my experience is one typically held by those who have been indoctrinated with this belief as part of their religious upbringing. Most people other than those with strong religious convictions, or those taught by them, would consider people as being able think, having consciousness, sentience, and / or self awareness. All of these attributes require a working brain of some kind, so the notion that aborting a foetus that has yet to develop any kind of a brain is killing someone is untrue. The Vatican for example considers the use of the morning after pill to constitute abortion, where even very few staunch Irish Catholics would concur with this view.

    Perhaps to clarify your own stance, you could state unambiguously what exactly you consider person is, and from that, what is it that makes them a person?

    What is a person ? what is person hood and when does begins, and where is it defined because I don't know. What do you think a person is and when does it become not ok to kill them ? When do you think you become a person with any right to life ?

    What I do know, is when biological human life begins to exist and therefore can be destroyed. A human life cycle begins at fertilisation as any biological reference will explain. You would not exist if you were destroyed by someone else at day 1 of your existence, 22 weeks, 2 years or 18 years.
    Alternatively, factually and scientifically tell us when human life begins ?

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html


  • #3394
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Look if people were content to fulminate against abortion in the privacy of their own homes and churches there wouldn't be a problem. It's because it's enshrined in the law and constitution applying to people of all religions and none that it's such a a major issue in Ireland. And the reason that is so can only be understood in the context of the overwhelming power of the Catholic Church in the past...

    So someone should only be against the taking of human life in their own home ?
    So for you abortion is actually about religion and politics, and only someone religious can be anti abortion and pro human life ? So what about atheists that are against abortion ? What do you blame that on ? Should they have no vote or say ?


  • #3395
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    So someone should only be against the taking of human life in their own home ?
    So for you abortion is actually about religion and politics, and only someone religious can be anti abortion and pro human life ? So what about atheists that are against abortion ? What do you blame that on ? Should they have no vote or say ?

    Sorry but you keep referring to the atheists,plural,who are against abortion.Who are these people and where in Irish society do they reside?


  • #3396
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    fran17 wrote: »
    Sorry but you keep referring to the atheists,plural,who are against abortion.Who are these people and where in Irish society do they reside?

    Are you also of the misconception that only someone religious can respect the right to human life ?
    Did you need religion to come to the conclusion abortion and the taking of human life is wrong ? or would you be anti abortion regardless ? I know I would.


  • Advertisement
  • #3397
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    Are you also of the misconception that only someone religious can respect the right to human life ?
    Did you need religion to come to the conclusion abortion and the taking of human life is wrong ? or would you be anti abortion regardless ? I know I would.

    There's dozens of well-known pro-life activists in Ireland. If these pro-life atheists are so numerous surely you should be able to name one puvlicly identifiable one...


  • #3398
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    There's dozens of well-known pro-life activists in Ireland. If these pro-life atheists are so numerous surely you should be able to name one puvlicly identifiable one...

    Why does someone have to be a "well known pro life activist" to be against abortion ? Are you one, or just an ordinary person ? Where do you reside in Irish society as you say ? Or why does someone have to be a theist to be against abortion and the taking of human life ? Are you seriously saying you would be pro abortion and not for the protection of human life if you were not religious ?

    So far this seems to be anti-theists who are pro abortion because they think it supporting anti-theism, and theists that are pro abortion because they think it's about anti atheism. Is there anyone here that can grasp the concept that it's about the right to human life and not about religion or political point scoring ?


  • #3399
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    What I do know, is when biological human life begins to exist and therefore can be destroyed. A human life cycle begins at fertilisation as any biological reference will explain. You would not exist if you were destroyed by someone else at day 1 of your existence, 22 weeks, 2 years or 18 years.
    Alternatively, factually and scientifically tell us when human life begins ?

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

    So how come excess IVF embryos can be destroyed then? How did our constitution miss out on affording them the same protection and when can we expect that to be rectified? Is Cora Sherlock getting on the case as we speak, do we think?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3400
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    fran17 wrote: »
    I can fully understand that this has always been,and will always be,a hugely emotive topic.I'm not wishing to offend anybody regarding the use of the term anesthesia when discussing abortion but it would be wrong to omit it from the discussion.The unborn child can feel pain from as early as 8 weeks,the ultimate goal of the repeal campaign is for full unrestricted abortion in Ireland so this subject is very much debateable.The cesspool that is the USA have introduced the "foetal pain abortion law" recently.Amnesty international,who only a few years ago changed their stance on abortion,promote full unrestricted abortion and they are at the coalface here.Knowing that unborn children feel pain and suffering,is anesthesia something you feel should be offered to mothers if abortion became available in Ireland?

    I'm still wondering what evidence you have that fetal pain is actually a thing, and if it is, why has nobody ever anaesthetized miscarrying fetuses or even babies during birth? Does their pain not matter or something?

    Obviously if it is real, then we must immediately begin anaesthetising babies during the birth process, and also for any threatened miscarriages. Why has nobody suggested this?
    fran17 wrote: »
    Yes I listened to the audio and it was terribly sad as all would agree.The one thing that stood out for me was the grave failings of the state in relation to this lady and her situation.The facilities and counselling must be made available in these situations.Life and nature can be horribly cruel at times and that was one of those occasions but that little girl lived,if only briefly,inside her mother and then passed away peacefully.

    You're right about it being totally unacceptable that there was no actual service for pregnancy bereavement at all, it didn't exist. The NHS offers it, for women who choose to continue their pregnancy in those cases. What does that tell you about who actually cares more about women and their families?
    (Look up the NHS site for Patau's syndrome if you don't believe me).

    I mean. We've had the ban on abortion since 1983, plenty of time to set up bereavement care if we wanted to. Looks like nobody here really cared.
    fran17 wrote: »
    To her and her family this was of course devastating but it accounts for a very small percentage of cases each year and to remove the right to life of all unborn child from our constitution on this basis would be wrong,in my opinion,and devastating for thousands of healthy unborn children,their fathers,families and society as a whole.I'll say again,abortion is not something we should aspire to in relation to human life and unplanned pregnancies in the 21st century.
    Except we do have abortion, don't we? Women just have to travel that's all. But it's perfectly legal to organize one openly from here. So is it really worth inflicting harm on women like Claire Cullen just so we can maintain a fictional moral high ground?

    Anyway, I don't think anyone ever "aspires" to having an abortion. The thing is that life is complicated and in some cases abortion is necessary.

    So if you're saying abortion is actually killing someone, then let's put these people in front of a jury to explain themselves, same as we would if they killed anyone else - if it was in self defence they will be found not guilty, but surely they need to be tried first, if we're serious about it? Right?

    And if it's not murder, then what harm would be done if Claire Cullen was allowed to end her pregnancy when she got her terrible diagnosis instead of having to suffer and put her family through terrible suffering for those weeks waiting for the baby to die?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3401
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    Why does someone have to be a "well known pro life activist" to be against abortion ? Are you one, or just an ordinary person ? Where do you reside in Irish society as you say ?

    Look I and Fran17 are just looking for some empirical evidence that these hordes of pro-life atheists actually exist. Naming just one Irish public figure comes into that category seems like one way of doing this, but since you're drawing a blank there perhaps you could come up with something else.


  • Advertisement
  • #3402
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    smacl wrote: »
    The bizarre notion that a freshly implanted foetus is actually a person in my experience is one typically held by those who have been indoctrinated with this belief as part of their religious upbringing.

    To be precise with the terminology, at implantation it has about another eight weeks until it's a foetus, and is at that point an embryo, or more precisely, a blastocyst. To wit, a ball of a couple of hundred cells, minimally differentiated into those that will form the placenta, and those that will form the embryo proper. This is also around the time that monozygotic twins form, by this structure (either the whole thing, or just the inner cell mass, depending on timing and developmental anatomy). i.e., it's able to essentially "bud" into two.

    Or in anti-abortion lingo, totally a baby/infant/person/sentient being, etc.


  • #3403
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Look I and Fran17 are just looking for some empirical evidence that these hordes of pro-life atheists actually exist. Naming just one Irish public figure comes into that category seems like one way of doing this, but since you're drawing a blank there perhaps you could come up with something else.

    You'll both have to explain to me why an atheist requires religion to respect the right to human life, and that being pro abortion is actually about politics and anti religion, and not about abortion.


  • #3404
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So how come excess IVF embryos can be destroyed then? How did our constitution miss out on affording them the same protection and when can we expect that to be rectified? Is Cora Sherlock getting on the case as we speak, do we think?

    So you only want abortion legislation just to destroy human embryo's ?
    If abortion is just about IVF, then why appeal the 8th ? Up untill what age should you be able to terminate another human life on demand ?


  • #3405
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    To be precise with the terminology, at implantation it has about another eight weeks until it's a foetus, and is at that point an embryo, or more precisely, a blastocyst. To wit, a ball of a couple of hundred cells, minimally differentiated into those that will form the placenta, and those that will form the embryo proper. This is also around the time that monozygotic twins form, by this structure (either the whole thing, or just the inner cell mass, depending on timing and developmental anatomy). i.e., it's able to essentially "bud" into two.

    Or in anti-abortion lingo, totally a baby/infant/person/sentient being, etc.

    Biologically when does a human life begin and at what precise date does it become no longer ok to kill it ?


  • #3406
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    So you only want abortion legislation just to destroy human embryo's ?
    If abortion is just about IVF, then why appeal the 8th ? Up untill what age should you be able to terminate another human life on demand ?

    I didn't say any of that, so why don't you answer the question I asked you first?

    (Ans: because you can't. It blows your claim about life beginning at fertilization out of the the water).

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3407
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I didn't say any of that, so why don't you answer the question I asked you first?

    (Ans: because you can't. It blows your claim about life beginning at fertilization out of the the water).

    It's not a claim, just a biological fact about when human life begins.

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

    I'm still wondering why you think abortion is limited to destroying embryo's and why ? Up to what age is it ok to destroy a human life ?


  • #3408
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    It's not a claim, just a biological fact about when human life begins.

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

    I'm still wondering why you think abortion is limited to destroying embryo's and why ? Up to what age is it ok to destroy a human life ?

    I don't think that, but I didn't ask you to repost a random link, I asked why, if it's so simple, you think Irish law doesn't agree with you? And why the pro life movement in Ireland seem happy enough with the law and therefore don't seem to agree with you either? Are they wrong, or are you?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3409
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I don't think that, but I didn't ask you to repost a random link, I asked why, if it's so simple, you think Irish law doesn't agree with you? And why the pro life movement in Ireland seem happy enough with the law and therefore don't seem to agree with you either? Are they wrong, or are you?

    It's not a random link, it a biology reference. If you think human life scientifically begins at another time, post us a factual link of when exactly that is. I'm still wondering if abortion is only about destroying emobryo's as you'd like people to think, why do you need abortion on demand and up to what age ?


  • #3410
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    It's not a random link, it a biology reference. If you think human life scientifically begins at another time, post us a factual link of when exactly that is. I'm still wondering if abortion is only about destroying emobryo's as you'd like people to think, why do you need abortion on demand and up to what age ?

    Doesn't work like that honey, I asked you something first!
    You answer me and then I'll see about yours! :lol:

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3411
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Doesn't work like that honey, I asked you something first!
    You answer me and then I'll see about yours! :lol:

    I've given you the biological facts luv not my problem if you can't reciprocate with anything.


  • Advertisement
  • #3412
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    I've given you the biological facts luv not my problem if you can't reciprocate with anything.
    Still unable to answer the question I see. As I predicted. :rolleyes:

    (Never mind, I knew you couldn't.)

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3413
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Still unable to answer the question I see. As I predicted. :rolleyes:

    (Never mind, I knew you couldn't.)

    I've already answered, but you still haven't been able to provide anything.


  • #3414
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    I've already answered, but you still haven't been able to provide anything.

    No you haven't. The question was why, if it's as simple as you say, Irish law doesn't actually agree with you, and why the pro life movements in Ireland don't seem to agree with you either. You haven't answered that at all.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3415
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No you haven't. The question was why, if it's as simple as you say, Irish law doesn't actually agree with you, and why the pro life movements in Ireland don't seem to agree with you either. You haven't answered that at all.

    I'm sorry when does Irish law say that human life biologically begins ? When do you claim a human life begins ? Also still wondering why abortion law is only about aborting embyros and why the law needs to be changed to bring in abortion on demand ? Also at what age is it ok to extinguish human life ?


  • #3416
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    I'm sorry when does Irish law say that human life biologically begins?
    Not at fertilization anyway. So maybe it's not quite as straightforward as you think?

    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    When do you claim a human life begins ? Also still wondering why abortion law is only about aborting embyros and why the law needs to be changed to bring in abortion on demand ? Also at what age is it ok to extinguish human life ?
    I don't know, do you?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #3417
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Not at fertilization anyway. So maybe it's not quite as straightforward as you think?

    I don't know, do you?

    Yeah it's just a simple biological fact when human life begins, as you'll find in any biology reference :
    Life Cycle, Human

    The human life cycle begins at fertilization

    http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

    So how did you determine when it's ok to take another human life ?


  • #3418
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So how come excess IVF embryos can be destroyed then? How did our constitution miss out on affording them the same protection and when can we expect that to be rectified? Is Cora Sherlock getting on the case as we speak, do we think?
    Oh! I know the answer to this one :)
    IVF embryos can be destroyed because they are not 'unborn' within the meaning of the Constitution and therefore have no claim to a right to life. That obviously doesn't mean they are not human life which began at fertilisation, because that is manifestly a different thing. I don't know anything about Cora Sherlock though, sorry :(

    Irish law doesn't actually set out when human life biologically begins, so it doesn't actually disagree with Giacomo McGubbin, and certainly doesn't blow his claim that life begins at fertilization out of the water (a claim that's obviously got plenty of support from a biological perspective anyway).
    I have a feeling you know Irish law in this respect deals with persons (specifically the unborn), not biology, which is why you're so unwilling to answer Giacomo McGubbin's question; providing an honest answer would demonstrate you're saying that Irish law doesn't agree with him whilst fully aware that Irish law doesn't disagree with him either.

    It's a bit disingenuous when you know Giacomo made a distinction between a person and a human life in the post you disputed, yet you're deliberately fudging the two in order to dispute it with him.


  • #3419
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Because the 8th Amendment was effectively crowbarred into the constitution by the Catholic Church. Our current abortion regime cannot be understood without an appreciation of the dominant position of the Church in Irish society until very recently...
    Though actually placed in the Constitution by popular vote. Understanding that many people were Catholic shouldn't overshadow understanding that it was the people who decided to place the Amendment in the Constitution, not the Catholic Church.


  • #3420
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fran -
    fran17 wrote: »
    Oh dear,giving the time frame of your last posting I had partially hoped you were in some way inebriated but sadly I was wrong. "Anti-choicers",so I assume if we felt the desire to reduce ourselves to your level we could call you "Pro-death"?
    fran17 wrote: »
    One of the most amoral postings I've ever read.I don't believe anyone here would be corrupt enough to concur with that.
    Great to have you drop by and contribute to the conversation.

    Unfortunately, here in A+A, we try to avoid the conversational equivalent of fist-waving and mooning other posters, so could you please cut out the aggro and discuss like an adult? Cards and bans are in store for posters who can't.

    The forum charter is here and you might benefit from a quick read of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #3421
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    What is a person ? what is person hood and when does begins, and where is it defined because I don't know. What do you think a person is and when does it become not ok to kill them ? When do you think you become a person with any right to life ?

    My understanding was that when pro-life people consider abortion to be killing, they are specifically talking about killing people. So for example, as in the above you talk about a person's right to life. You've responded to my question with another question rather than an answer, which suggests to me that you don't know what a person is. It is a question I've already answered in my previous post. In my opinion, a person is a sentient human being with a mind. Mindless things aren't people, and to have a mind requires a functional brain. Some folks, predominantly religious ones such as those from the Vatican, would have a very different opinion. They seem to be of the opinion that a person suddenly sparks into existence when the sperm hits and penetrates the ovum, but I would ask what makes this a person? Absolam taking a pro-life stance has strenuously denied it has anything to do with a soul, but if not a soul, what then? What exactly do you mean when you consider a freshly fertilized embryo as being a person? What specifically distinguishes these rather few cells from say a similar number of autonomous cancer cells rattling around an old man's prostate? Similarly, what distinguishes us as humans from other animals such as flies or mammals such as rats? If you think about it, is you answer based on your religious beliefs?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement