Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

The Irish constitution in this regard breaches basic human rights and is stated as doing so by the United Nations and Amnesty International, which is what I find objectionable. Its position is backed up by largely Catholic pro-life groups, which I also find objectionable.

Is that not more than a tad overwrought? After all, the UN has said no such thing; a UN committee has called on Ireland to hold a referendum, but that's not the same thing as saying the Constitution breaches human rights, basic or otherwise. And Amnesty has been shamelessly pro abortion for years, so no surprises there....

smacl wrote: »

What is also apparent is that we have abortion on demand in this country for anyone who can afford the price of a cheap plane ticket and is fit enough to travel.

Is it not apparent that that plane ticket places them in a different country... so the abortion on demand is not in this country?

smacl wrote: »

My understanding is that we have ~3,500 Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions per annum, where the right to life legislation here stops a tiny fraction of this number of procedures happening among a group of people that have a genuine need.

I have to wonder... where does your understanding of the 'tiny fraction' come from? Leaving aside the fact that having a genuine need to kill someone doesn't really mean we should cater for it.

Giacomo McGubbin

My question actually was

[QUOTE=GiacomoMcGubbin[/QUOTE]
Show me where the constitution defines the word person in the same way you do ?[/QUOTE]

smacl wrote: »

So you're now accepting we're talking about people here. Progress of sorts.

I've already had to remind you before to be honest enough not to misquote me or pretend what I said. The whole problem, which you introduced for yourself, is the term person, unlike human life, is completely and utterly arbitrary. e.g. as many despots have done throughout history, someone can pretend you are not a person any time they choose, under the disguise of some arbitrary criteria you fail to meet to their pleasing. However scientifically and biologically, the definition of human life is scientifically unavoidable, and therefore it becomes pretty clear that when someone advocates for the killing of human life, that's what they are advocating for, no matter how much they try to cover it the fact.

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

However scientifically and biologically, the definition of human life is scientifically unavoidable, [...]

Wow. Apparently one can drive a coach and four through this "'scientifically', life begins at conception" stuff -- and back it up a few more times and do it again -- and it just doesn't take a blind bit of notice, and just keep being asserted away merrily.

fran17

alaimacerc wrote: »

Wow. Apparently one can drive a coach and four through this "'scientifically', life begins at conception" stuff -- and back it up a few more times and do it again -- and it just doesn't take a blind bit of notice, and just keep being asserted away merrily.

Well do feel free to correct the record then,when does human life begin? Your going to find it increasingly difficult to sustain the argument against life beginning at conception if you don't have a counter argument of substance to pursue.I'm of course assuming that you do not accept the scientific conclusions regarding conception being the moment life begins.

Cabaal

A "pro-life" person getting all upset by the LGBT community supporting repeal the 8th on Liveline,

http://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2016-08-16&rte_mt_prg_name=test-liveline&title=Repeal%20the%208th%20-%20Pride&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0816%2F20160816_rteradio1-liveline-repealthe8_c21037916_21037921_232_.mp3&r=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0816%2F20160816_rteradio1-liveline-repealthe8_c21037916_21037921_232_.mp3

By the callers own admission, most pro-life people were against the marriage equality ref....no surprise there

alaimacerc

fran17 wrote: »

Well do feel free to correct the record then,when does human life begin? Your going to find it increasingly difficult to sustain the argument against life beginning at conception if you don't have a counter argument of substance to pursue.

What part of this haven't I already covered? Why do you imagine I can't correct theocratically-themed oversimplifications of the biology without presenting some "competing" oversimplification?

I'm of course assuming that you do not accept the scientific conclusions regarding conception being the moment life begins.

I don't accept mischaracterisation of "scientific conclusions regarding conception" gleaned from anti-abortion websites cherrypicking and quoteming. The actual science I accept just fine. Hence my expounding on said science.

Which is it you imagine "begins at conception"? Vitality? ("Life".) Speciation? ("Human".) Or indeed individuation? (The "a" that appears and disappears from breezy anti-reproductive-rights summaries on this topic.)

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

I hate to break it to you but a sperm is not human life, just as I had to explain earlier to someone that a cancer cell or a finger or a prostrate is not human life.

All those things are alive. All those things are of the species "human". Perhaps by "human life" you mean specifically "totipotent and haploid". In which case, your argument amounts to essentially pointing out that the beginning of the haploid phase of the human life cycle is, surprisingly enough, the beginning of the haploid phase of the human life cycle. Then adding in lots of emotionalist waving of arms to make this seem like anything other than mere tautology.

alaimacerc

fran17 wrote: »

See this is one of the many atheist conundrums I have trouble rationalising.

Please do tell us all about these "many" conundrums. Well, maybe on some other thread where the "many" advantages of invisible sky-fairies over going with the evidence of the absence of same is more directly relevant.

You base all your beliefs and trust in science having the answers to all questions,even though it does not,yet you refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence and understanding regarding the question of the beginning of life/conception.

Eh, we must be having different conversations. You just asserted that personhood was determined by having the property of sex. I just cited the science that makes complete nonsense of that. Which of us is it that's "refusing to acknowledge scientific evidence", again?

I'm not a biochemist however is a zygote not the earliest development stage of an entirely new and unique life with its own distinct DNA containing all the genetic information necessary to sustain a new individual/life?Because science concludes it is.

Science concludes that it isn't. Did you miss my earlier account of early embryonic development, implantation, and at what point monozygotic twins form? Which of two identical twins aren't "new and unique lives"?

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Wow. Apparently one can drive a coach and four through this "'scientifically', life begins at conception" stuff -- and back it up a few more times and do it again -- and it just doesn't take a blind bit of notice, and just keep being asserted away merrily.

Then I'm afraid your coach and four crashed and burned a long time ago.
Science and biology are very clear. The human life cycle begins at fertilisation, not before, not afterwards.

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

If science is wrong about the human life cycle then provide us the exact week human life does begin, and the new life cycle you've invented for humanity.

What's next "life begins at 40 ?"

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

All those things are alive. All those things are of the species "human". Perhaps by "human life" you mean specifically "totipotent and haploid". In which case, your argument amounts to essentially pointing out that the beginning of the haploid phase of the human life cycle is, surprisingly enough, the beginning of the haploid phase of the human life cycle. Then adding in lots of emotionalist waving of arms to make this seem like anything other than mere tautology.

Unless you are Monty Python, a sperm, or a prostrate is not a human life.

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Science and biology are very clear. The human life cycle begins at fertilisation, not before, not afterwards.

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

If science is wrong about the human life cycle then provide us the exact week human life does begin, and the new life cycle you've invented for humanity.

Science isn't wrong. You're mistaken -- if we can assume you're incorrect in good faith, as is becoming harder and harder to believe about the science.

Cast your unwilling eyes just a short distance upthread. These are the very "points", if points we can even call them, I've just dealt with.

One gathers, as I say, that your strategy is "ignore, but by all means keep asserting".

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Science isn't wrong. You're mistaken -- if we can assume you're incorrect in good faith, as is becoming harder and harder to believe about the science.

Cast your unwilling eyes just a short distance upthread. These are the very "points", if points we can even call them, I've just dealt with.

One gathers, as I say, that your strategy is "ignore, but by all means keep asserting".

Bino - Science isn't wrong, you are. Despite your failed attempts to disguise the fact, Science is quite clear when the human life cycle begins.

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

The human life cycle begins at fertilization.

Still you've failed to provide the claimed other point human life begins according to you, and the proof of this secret alternative biological life cycle.

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Bino - Science isn't wrong, you are. Despite your failed attempts to disguise the fact, Science is quite clear when the human life cycle begins.

Science isn't a game of "Simon says". What do you purport I've "disguising"? On the contrary, you assert, I explain with reference to observable fact. You can't just keep repeating the same mantra, you do -- eventually! -- have to look at the actual evidence. You might like to point out any errors in what I've said about the science -- there are in fact none. You might like to engage with the various counterpoints I've made to your oversimplified assertions -- you've very systematically avoided doing so.

Still you've failed to provide the claimed other point human life begins according to you, and the proof of this secret alternative biological life cycle.

Again, I answered this very "point" just a short distance upthread, in reply to your comedy double-act partner. Unblink your eyes a little.

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Science isn't a game of "Simon says". What do you purport I've "disguising"? On the contrary, you assert, I explain with reference to observable fact. You can't just keep repeating the same mantra, you do -- eventually! -- have to look at the actual evidence. You might like to point out any errors in what I've said about the science -- there are in fact none. You might like to engage with the various counterpoints I've made to your oversimplified assertions -- you've very systematically avoided doing so.


Again, I answered this very "point" just a short distance upthread, in reply to your comedy double-act partner. Unblink your eyes a little.

You haven't answered anything, I'm not posting an opinion, I'm simple stating the standard factual biological human life cycle, supported by biological references, http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html the same one you'll find in any biology textbook, and you keep pretending the human life cycle is not a scientific fact. So let's hear this alternative human biological life cycle of yours and when exactly it begins, and post it with some supporting specific evidence and references ?

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

You haven't answered anything, I'm not posting an opinion, I'm simple stating the standard factual biological human life cycle, supported by biological references, http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html the same one you'll find in any biology textbook, and you keep pretending the human life cycle is not a scientific fact. So let's hear this alternative human biological life cycle of yours and when exactly it begins, and post it with some supporting specific evidence and references ?

Read what I posted. Answer what I've actually said, not your own self-serving mischaracterisations of it. I'm not "pretending" anything, "disguising" anything, and I would ask that you desist from such uncivil claims that, very clearly, you're not going to be able to back up.

Just spamming the thread with the same assertions over, and over, and over isn't a productive use of your time -- much less of anyone else's to deal with them.

alaimacerc

Also, please don't mangle quotes of my posts by adding childish emoticons not present in the original.

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Read what I posted. Answer what I've actually said, not your own self-serving mischaracterisations of it. I'm not "pretending" anything, "disguising" anything, and I would ask that you desist from such uncivil claims that, very clearly, you're not going to be able to back up.

Just spamming the thread with the same assertions over, and over, and over isn't a productive use of your time -- much less of anyone else's to deal with them.

The human life cycle is not an assertion, it's simple established scientific and biological fact, and I've provide a link to same. When are you going to provide us with a link to your alternative human life cycle and proof for same ?

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Also, please don't mangle quotes of my posts by adding childish emoticons not present in the original.

Don't make false accusations, I added nothing, if you edited at the same time I posting or just shortly after, and therefore doesn't show up in the edits that's your problem.

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

The human life cycle is not an assertion, it's simple established scientific and biological fact, and I've provide a link to same. When are you going to provide us with a link to your alternative human life cycle and proof for same ?

Wherein have I claimed there's an "alternative human life cycle"? Oh weait, I didn't, because that was a deliberate and repeated misrepresentation on your part. Where have I posted anything scientifically inaccurate? Where have you addressed any of the counterpoints I've raised to your and fran's inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and misstatements of what "the science says"?

Not seeing any of that. Just seeing a whole lot of repeated assertions of the same claims you're very clearly not able to back up when challenged on any of the evidence, particulars, or implications.

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Don't make false accusations, I added nothing, if you edited at the same time I posting or just shortly after, and therefore doesn't show up in the edits that's your problem.

False accusations, indeed?

My post:

alaimacerc wrote: »

Science isn't a game of "Simon says". What do you purport I've "disguising"? On the contrary, you assert, I explain with reference to observable fact. You can't just keep repeating the same mantra, you do -- eventually! -- have to look at the actual evidence. You might like to point out any errors in what I've said about the science -- there are in fact none. You might like to engage with the various counterpoints I've made to your oversimplified assertions -- you've very systematically avoided doing so.


Again, I answered this very "point" just a short distance upthread, in reply to your comedy double-act partner. Unblink your eyes a little.

Your quote of it:

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

You haven't answered anything, I'm not posting an opinion, I'm simple stating the standard factual biological human life cycle, supported by biological references, http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html the same one you'll find in any biology textbook, and you keep pretending the human life cycle is not a scientific fact. So let's hear this alternative human biological life cycle of yours and when exactly it begins, and post it with some supporting specific evidence and references ?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Science isn't a game of "Simon says". What do you purport I've "disguising"? On the contrary, you assert, I explain with reference to observable fact. You can't just keep repeating the same mantra, you do -- eventually! -- have to look at the actual evidence. You might like to point out any errors in what I've said about the science -- there are in fact none. You might like to engage with the various counterpoints I've made to your oversimplified assertions -- you've very systematically avoided doing so.


Again, I answered this very "point" just a short distance upthread, in reply to your comedy double-act partner. Unblink your eyes a little.

Spot the difference. (Were the clue "adding childish emoticons not present in the original" somehow mysteriously insufficient to describe what you'd done.)

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

False accusations, indeed?

My post:



Your quote of it:


Spot the difference. (Were the clue "adding childish emoticons not present in the original" somehow mysteriously insufficient to describe what you'd done.)

I didn't add it, I posted exactly what was in the post, if you were edited it shortly after you made it before the edit's register, that's you issue. I'm quite happy for the mods to check the sever records of your edits.

alaimacerc

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

I didn't add it, I posted exactly what was in the post, if you were edited it shortly after you made it before the edit's register, that's you issue. I'm quite happy for the mods to check the sever records of your edits.

So there's an emoticon in your quote that doesn't appear in my post, that's not flagged as edited, that I didn't write, and certainly didn't edit to remove, and it's somehow nothing to do with you? Mysterious.

I'd appreciate if there's no further such ineffable occurrences, all the same.

Giacomo McGubbin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Wherein have I claimed there's an "alternative human life cycle"? Oh weait, I didn't, because that was a deliberate and repeated misrepresentation on your part. Where have I posted anything scientifically inaccurate? Where have you addressed any of the counterpoints I've raised to your and fran's inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and misstatements of what "the science says"?

Not seeing any of that. Just seeing a whole lot of repeated assertions of the same claims you're very clearly not able to back up when challenged on any of the evidence, particulars, or implications.

It's a Scientific fact that the human life cycle begins at fertilisation It's not an assertion.

Life Cycle, Human



The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote. Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization, this hollow ball burrows into the wall of the mother's uterus, or womb. The cells then form three layers that fold and bend into the more complex shape of an early embryo. Gradually, the cells begin to become different from one another, forming, for example, the nervous system and the circulatory system . . . . .



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

Rather than just continued ranting, post proper proof from a reputable source that the human life cycle does not begin at fertilisation.

aloyisious

Meantime Giacomo, it's a given that the life-cycle of any human starts at inception, a few days after sex, and the fertilized ova attaches itself to the wall of her uterus (if I'm getting the last correct). So the feotus has a way to go before it's starts to form up as being seen and thought of as a human, prospective, potential or whatever adjective one wishes to place before the word human.

Would I be right in thinking, from my understanding of what you've written some pages back, that you would not oppose abortion before the 22nd week approx? I won't go beyond that timeline at the moment as I would be presuming too much.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

it's a given that the life-cycle of any human starts at inception, a few days after sex, and the fertilized ova attaches itself to the wall of her uterus (if I'm getting the last correct).

Inception? Doesn't inception simply mean 'beginning'? So it's a given that everything starts at inception. That the inception of a human life cycle is implantation, when the blastocyst embeds in the uterine wall would certainly be an opinion, but it's hardly a given.

Encyclopedia Brittanica, for instance, states that " In higher animals, the life cycle also encompasses a single generation: the individual animal begins with the fusion of male and female sex cells (gametes)", so there is support there for fertilisation as the beginning.

There's an impressive list of quotes in an (self-admittedly pro life) article in Princeton University to back up the claim that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote (the zygote comes before the blastocyst).

Rationalwiki offers the same conclusion from a genetic perspective, and includes a conclusion from a neurological point of view more in line with smacls point of view I think. It also offers what I think is a quite relevent quote from Scott Gilbert, an eminent development biologist;

"The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science."

aloyisious wrote: »

So the feotus has a way to go before it's starts to form up as being seen and thought of as a human, prospective, potential or whatever adjective one wishes to place before the word human.

That would seem to be very much a matter of opinion; the opinion that it is 'a human life' from the point of fertilisation is obviously not an outlier though.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

Meantime Giacomo, it's a given that the life-cycle of any human starts at inception . . .

Surely the point about a cycle is that it doesn't have a start? You can pick any point and treat it as the start, but that's arbitrary.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely the point about a cycle is that it doesn't have a start? You can pick any point and treat it as the start, but that's arbitrary.

Indeed. We have difference words for things such as sperm. ovum, zygote, foetus and baby, because they are clearly different things. In Irish legislation we see the word person used extensively, and unborn in relation to abortion. Interesting that there is a need to distinguish between an 'unborn' and a 'person'.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Is it not apparent that that plane ticket places them in a different country... so the abortion on demand is not in this country?

When the state that sends and young girl who was raped abroad for an abortion against the wishes of her parents it shows what a farce the stance you are taking actually is (source),

***A and B v Eastern Health Board [1998] 1 IR 464
This case was very similar to the X case – the girl was 13 (14 in X case), she was a rape victim and wanted an abortion, saying she was going to commit suicide if she could not have one. The circumstances were, unfortunately, worse in this case.
The girl was living in poverty (they were also members of the traveler community (this is noted only for a cultural/background understanding of the girls position)).
The alleged rapist was a friend of the family and the girl’s parents were not supportive of 1) the prosecution and 2) her request for an abortion.
The Health Board sought to take the girl into care for they believed her life was at risk (she was suicidal). Under the travel amendment, she could travel to the UK if her parents let her, but her parents would not allow this.
Held: The District Court granted a care order (child’s welfare/life is at risk). Once in the care, the HSE then has the legal authority to consent to the girl travelling and to consent to the medical procedure (abortion).
The parents appealed this to the High Court where their appeal failed. Ultimately the child was taken to the UK where she had an abortion.
The HSE took the case to court to “rubber stamp” the girl’s travel and deflect criticism onto the judiciary.

The notion that anyone believes an impoverished 13 year old child who was rape victim should be force to carry a pregnancy full term against her wishes is clearly barbaric, regardless of whether the child was suicidal.

I have to wonder... where does your understanding of the 'tiny fraction' come from? Leaving aside the fact that having a genuine need to kill someone doesn't really mean we should cater for it.

The tiny fraction refers to cases such as the above, as a function of the ~3.5 thousand other cases where women travel to the UK for an abortion each year. If the child hadn't been suicidal, and didn't have the means to travel independently for an abortion, she would have been forced to carry on with the pregnancy. It is these cases against the most vulnerable in our society where our draconian anti-abortion legislation kicks in, it does not affect the thousands it affects the few.

Giacomo McGubbin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely the point about a cycle is that it doesn't have a start? You can pick any point and treat it as the start, but that's arbitrary.

Well I'm sure someone could try and argue human life begins at 40 (might be useful in attempting to justifying the killing of 'undesirable' 39 year olds), or their washing machine cycle starts 5 mins from the end, but meanwhile biologically and scientifically . . .

Life Cycle, Human
The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote .

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

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely the point about a cycle is that it doesn't have a start? You can pick any point and treat it as the start, but that's arbitrary.

Nature is arbitrary on when the union of sperm and egg happens, but that union is the start of an individual human's life-cycle. It's like a cog and chain, singly they ain't going anywhere, but together... It might be random, but hey; that's nature for you.