Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

So there is a limit to a woman's right to choose and control over her bodily autonomy.

Hi, thanks for asking. I think we all have 100% free right to autonomy in all things UP UNTIL the point that our choices and actions (or inactions maybe) impact on other sentient entities.

At SOME point in the process after conception the fetus goes from a blob of living and developing cells to an entity with the faculty of sentience and consciousness. The moment this happens it becomes an entity to which I have to hold moral and ethical concern. Because if moral and ethical concern, and concepts like "rights", are NOT being hung off that attribute..... I genuinely have to admit I do not know what they ARE being mediated on.

Our main issue is that we do not know exactly when this happens. There might not even BE a single moment when it happens. Like looking at RED and ORANGE on a rainbow.... we know where "red" is, we know where "orange" is.... but there is no single point where red stops being red and starts being orange.

Consciousness is very much like that. We can identify entities that lack it entirely (a zygote or a rock)...... and entities that have it (you and I)......... but we can only make educated guesses as to exactly how and where and when such a transition occurs.

So the best we can do is balance probabilities and likelihoods based on what we DO know. And everything we DO know tells us that the MAJORITY of abortions happen at a period in time when there is no reason to see the fetus as worthy of moral and ethical concern. And so it is a service we can, in good conscience, offer.

But at SOME point it does make that transition. And in the absence of knowledge absolutes in this regard I think we have to do our best with the data we do have to estimate the best time we can as to when we have made that transition from a single moral entity of concern (the pregnant woman) to two of them, and act accordingly.

fran17 wrote: »

Does that not contradict your entire argument.

Which argument? Is it possible you have me mixed up with someone else? As I genuinely recall no argument I have ever made that is contradicted by maintaining term limits on how long we would in good conscience offer abortions as a service.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

Sorry, for a moment there I thought Texan abortion law was, however temporarily, what we were chatting about.

Seeing as it's about Europe, maybe this will fit the bill..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjStPTJgNbSAhUlD8AKHTsvCZUQFghaMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F6235557.stm&usg=AFQjCNG2oZLBmLBj6CI9_cz-oRu2zAGcjg

You can talk about what ever countey you want in fairness. I never said not to talk about Texas. I asked what country do you think have good laws that we could model here?

Ah yes. The word "Good". Somehow I missed that when I read what you wrote "like the rest of Europe". I ignored the word "good" as written by you in relation to the Guttmacher Institute seeing as how you wrote of it as pro abortion, something you seem to dislike. I regret if I mistook that usage for sarcasm on your part.

Originally Posted by jameorahiely View Post
What about women with no friends?

The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute


What countries abortionlaws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

[
Ah yes. The word "Good". Somehow I missed that when I read what you wrote about Europe. I ignored the word "good" as written by you in relation to the Guttmacher Institute seeing as how you wrote of it as pro abortion, something you seem to dislike. I regret if I mistook that usage for sarcasm on your part.

Originally Posted by jameorahiely View Post
What about women with no friends?

The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute


What countries abortion laws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?

:rolleyes:

Well you can recommend bad abortions laws if that's what you're in to.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Well you can recommend bad abortions laws if that's what you're in to.

I await your "recommended" list.

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

I await your "recommended" list.

I don't have a recommended list, I defer to the pro aborts to provide the details of what changes they want made.

But maybe they think there's no such thing as a bad abortion, am i right?

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

I don't have a recommended list, I defer to the pro aborts to provide the details of what changes they want made.

But maybe they think there's no such thing as a bad abortion, am i right?

Ah, I get you now.

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

I don't have a recommended list, I defer to the pro aborts to provide the details of what changes they want made.

Odd then that when someone does provide such details, you wholesale ignore them and their posts. It calls into question whether you do wish to have the details provided that you sit there claiming you want provided.

jameorahiely wrote: »

But maybe they think there's no such thing as a bad abortion, am i right?

If you say so. None of the actual pro-choice side on here appear to be though. I would not think you are "right" at all. In fact in the posts I have written, and you have engaged in your usual approach of wholesale ignoring, I have outlined a framework in which abortions could be said to be "bad" all the time.

One wonders why it is you need to argue and attack against a group of people and ideas that solely appear to exist in YOUR head, rather than the actual groups that exist out here in reality. In fact with words like "pro aborts" you are not only inventing people and positions that do not generally exist....... you even have your own label for them that us out here in reality do not identify with.

Your own little army of strawmen complete with their own moniker. Nice.

stefanovich

Cabaal wrote:

Don't try kid yourself, The anti-choice crowd are against abortions for non-viable pregnancy's as well.

I'm not. I am not part of any crowd, I just think elective abortion is wrong. If you don't want the child then it can be adopted by someone who is in a position to care for it.

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm not. I am not part of any crowd, I just think elective abortion is wrong. If you don't want the child then it can be adopted by someone who is in a position to care for it.

It is not the place of any person to be made an incubator for something they do not want, but someone else can not have.

A woman should not be expected to produce a baby for someone else who can not have one themselves......... any more than I should be expected to play soccer because some people in wheelchairs want to but can not.

No, I am afraid if you have any interest (if) in changing the opinion of pro-choice voters or campaigners (like myself) the only way to do it would be to establish that the fetus should be considered to be an entity with rights, or an entity deserving of moral or ethical concern. If such an argument were to be made I would change my ENTIRE view of abortion on the spot.... in real time........ without apology, embarrassment or hesitation.

Until you can make such a move, I doubt your arguments are generally going to be taken seriously by anyone other than people who already agree with you. Assuming, as I said above, you care.

Delirium

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm not. I am not part of any crowd, I just think elective abortion is wrong. If you don't want the child then it can be adopted by someone who is in a position to care for it.

How does adoption make a woman not pregnant?

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Odd then that when someone does provide such details, you wholesale ignore them and their posts. It calls into question whether you do wish to have the details provided that you sit there claiming you want provided.



If you say so. None of the actual pro-choice side on here appear to be though. I would not think you are "right" at all. In fact in the posts I have written, and you have engaged in your usual approach of wholesale ignoring, I have outlined a framework in which abortions could be said to be "bad" all the time.

One wonders why it is you need to argue and attack against a group of people and ideas that solely appear to exist in YOUR head, rather than the actual groups that exist out here in reality. In fact with words like "pro aborts" you are not only inventing people and positions that do not generally exist....... you even have your own label for them that us out here in reality do not identify with.

Your own little army of strawmen complete with their own moniker. Nice.

Nozz this is both interesting and Halarious. You accuse me of ignoring posters, yet you freely admitted a couple of posts ago you didn't bother reading the previous couple of pages in the thread and asked for a summary.

When bad abortions were being discuused you said "it had nothing to do with abortions" and I wad being "shrill"

aloyisious

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm not. I am not part of any crowd, I just think elective abortion is wrong. If you don't want the child then it can be adopted by someone who is in a position to care for it.

You do see that your choice directly affects the woman's right of choice when it is she who must do the carrying as a result, and not you.

As the woman will have to carry the unwanted in her womb while she waits for the birth you feel she must have to allow your preferred adoption choice go ahead, will you pay her for the several months work she and her body has to undergo to satisfy you choice?

Will you adopt the newly born child or continue to expect some-one else to do the job your choice has made necessary?

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

Nozz this is both interesting and Halarious. You accuse me of ignoring posters, yet you freely admitted a couple of posts ago you didn't bother reading the previous couple of pages in the thread and asked for a summary.

As if there is some equivilance between not reading EVERY post on a 100s of posts long thread........ and wantonly ignoring posts that are directly specifically at you? Come off it, even by your usual standards that is a stretch of nonsense.

You pretend to want to be told things, or read things, but when anyone writes them you whole sale ignore it. That is NOTHING even REMOTELY comparable to me asking for help catching up on an extremely long thread.

jameorahiely wrote: »

When bad abortions were being discuused you said "it had nothing to do with abortions" and I wad being "shrill"

The things you brought up about the incorrect disposal of medical waste IS nothing to do with the morality ofabortions. Medical malpractice while performing a procedure should not be used to indict the procedure. Such malpractice is no more relevant to the morality of abortion, than child slave labor used on clothing productions lines indicts the morality of buying or wearing clothes. They are ENTIRELY different things.

That you have no arguments against abortion and so are forced to desperately cling to people who act poorly while performing or offering them, just shows how intellectually bankrupt and empty your positions actually are.

MrPudding

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm not. I am not part of any crowd, I just think elective abortion is wrong. If you don't want the child then it can be adopted by someone who is in a position to care for it.

I presume, then, that there is a huge waiting list of people waiting to adopt children and there aren't any children waiting to be adopted... And that shortage of children then justifies in your keeping a woman pregnant against her will?

MrP

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As if there is some equivilance between not reading EVERY post on a 100s of posts long thread........ and wantonly ignoring posts that are directly specifically at you? Come off it, even by your usual standards that is a stretch of nonsense.

You pretend to want to be told things, or read things, but when anyone writes them you whole sale ignore it. That is NOTHING even REMOTELY comparable to me asking for help catching up on an extremely long thread.



The things you brought up about the incorrect disposal of medical waste IS nothing to do with the morality ofabortions. Medical malpractice while performing a procedure should not be used to indict the procedure. Such malpractice is no more relevant to the morality of abortion, than child slave labor used on clothing productions lines indicts the morality of buying or wearing clothes. They are ENTIRELY different things.

That you have no arguments against abortion and so are forced to desperately cling to people who act poorly while performing or offering them, just shows how intellectually bankrupt and empty your positions actually are.

How do you know they weren't aimed at you if you didn't read them?

The thread is called abortion part trois. Not the morality of abortion part trois.

Maybe if your posts aren't being responded to, you're not saying anything of substance? No point in jumping up and down complainting you're not getting enough attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

How do you know they weren't aimed at you if you didn't read them?

If you think there are posts that I have missed that replied to the ones I posted to you, then by all means cite/quote/link them. But this cloak and dagger "Oh they might be there, how do you know" canard is not likely to fool anyone..... except possibly yourself.

jameorahiely wrote: »

The thread is called abortion part trois. Not the morality of abortion part trois.

Nor is it called "The standards of conformity to medical good practice while performing abortion" yet you still roll in complaining about fetal matter being tossed in bins. So in all fairness you are probably the LAST person who should be admonishing others on the thread topic, are you not.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Maybe if your posts aren't being responded to, you're not saying anything of substance?

Or you have no replies of any substance to offer to them, because the points I make are entirely correct and you know as well as I do that you can not rebut them.

jameorahiely wrote: »

No point in jumping up and down complainting you're not getting enough attention.

No pointing telling met here is no point doing what I did not actually do.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

I don't have a recommended list, I defer to the pro aborts to provide the details of what changes they want made.

But maybe they think there's no such thing as a bad abortion, am i right?

Re changes in law, I thought you understood the change being asked for is the removal of the 8th amendment.

Are you against abortions in general or just "bad" abortions?

aloyisious

I see from the Iona Institute latest release that removing the 8th amendment will lead to widespread eugenics here, so it'll not merely argue from a "save the babies" angle but argue that doctors will be authorising and performing abortions on the basis of prognosis, or as it puts it - let's consider the specific case of babies with Downs Syndrome.

The release is under the heading of Defend Marriage in Ireland: Husband and Wife, posting on of the Iona release. The DMI post includes photos of Enda Kenny, Terry O'Neill (president of NOW) and Damien Thorne (he of the film Omen) holding a dagger. It seems DMI think we in the west are on the slippery slope.

https://www.facebook.com/421453267910088/photos/1197470700308337/

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you think there are posts that I have missed that replied to the ones I posted to you, then by all means cite/quote/link them. But this cloak and dagger "Oh they might be there, how do you know" canard is not likely to fool anyone..... except possibly yourself.



Nor is it called "The standards of conformity to medical good practice while performing abortion" yet you still roll in complaining about fetal matter being tossed in bins. So in all fairness you are probably the LAST person who should be admonishing others on the thread topic, are you not.



Or you have no replies of any substance to offer to them, because the points I make are entirely correct and you know as well as I do that you can not rebut them.



No pointing telling met here is no point doing what I did not actually do.

I wasn't the first to mention the Marie Stopes clinic. I replied to a posters who were already talking about it, but maybr you didn't resd their posts either? You don't seem to have a problem with them discussing it. Ain't that Fascinating.
Anyway, enough attention for you!

aloyisious wrote: »

Re changes in law, I thought you understood the change being asked for is the removal of the 8th amendment.

Are you against abortions in general or just "bad" abortions?

I want more imformation on what the aim is.

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

I wasn't the first to mention the Marie Stopes clinic. I replied to a posters who were already talking about it, but maybr you didn't resd their posts either?

I do not care if 1 person or 1000 mentioned it before you. I replied to YOU and you are dodging that reply ever since. Simple as.

And as dodges go "something here might be a reply to you but you missed it, how would you know?" is probably the weakest one I EVER saw on ALL my time on this forum. And I have seen some real doozies.

But even then your dodge is a distortion because I am not talking about any particular clinic in my response, so OTHER people discussing that clinic is irrelevant to me. I am talking IN GENERAL about your move of complaining about medical malpractice while offering an abortion service as if it is relevant to the debate. Especially given you have the gall to admonish OTHERS on what the title of the thread is.

The two are separate things. The ethics of abortion are entirely different to the medical ethics we adhere to while performing them. Proper practice, proper disposal of waste, proper processing of patients.......... are medical meta issues and if anyone is not performing adequately....... whether they are performing an abortion, cosmetic surgery, removing an appendix, or merely a root canal....... then that is an issue IN AND OF ITSELF, and nothing to do with the procedure they happened to be performing at the time.

The issue here is that your arguments against abortion ITSELF are non-existent. Completely. But your strong emotional and/or religious bias against it forces you to grasp at any straws you can to indict it, or the people who perform it, merely by proxy. And this is NOT an honest move from you.

As I said that is about as honest (that is to say, not honest at all) as saying the production or wearing of clothing is immoral because SOME people used child slave labor when they manufacture them. Indicting X with the crimes of people who are offering X is a move of sheer desperation and intellectual bankruptcy, and nothing more.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Anyway, enough attention for you!

So running away again then. Figures. It does afford another oppertunity to test out the old tongue in cheek "nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" however which I invented as a joke, but has since validated itself multiple times. It states the probability that a user will reply to you in the future goes UP in proportion to the number of times they type something suggesting they will not.

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not care if 1 person or 1000 mentioned it before you. I replied to YOU and you are dodging that reply ever since. Simple as.

And as dodges go "something here might be a reply to you but you missed it, how would you know?" is probably the weakest one I EVER saw on ALL my time on this forum. And I have seen some real doozies.

But even then your dodge is a distortion because I am not talking about any particular clinic in my response, so OTHER people discussing that clinic is irrelevant to me. I am talking IN GENERAL about your move of complaining about medical malpractice while offering an abortion service as if it is relevant to the debate. Especially given you have the gall to admonish OTHERS on what the title of the thread is.

The two are separate things. The ethics of abortion are entirely different to the medical ethics we adhere to while performing them. Proper practice, proper disposal of waste, proper processing of patients.......... are medical meta issues and if anyone is not performing adequately....... whether they are performing an abortion, cosmetic surgery, removing an appendix, or merely a root canal....... then that is an issue IN AND OF ITSELF, and nothing to do with the procedure they happened to be performing at the time.

The issue here is that your arguments against abortion ITSELF are non-existent. Completely. But your strong emotional and/or religious bias against it forces you to grasp at any straws you can to indict it, or the people who perform it, merely by proxy. And this is NOT an honest move from you.

As I said that is about as honest (that is to say, not honest at all) as saying the production or wearing of clothing is immoral because SOME people used child slave labor when they manufacture them. Indicting X with the crimes of people who are offering X is a move of sheer desperation and intellectual bankruptcy, and nothing more.



So running away again then. Figures. It does afford another oppertunity to test out the old tongue in cheek "nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" however which I invented as a joke, but has since validated itself multiple times. It states the probability that a user will reply to you in the future goes UP in proportion to the number of times they type something suggesting they will not.

Will you evet get real :rolleyes:

You complain when I reply to the thread.
You complain when I don't reply specifically to you.
You complain you can't read the thread because I'm too shrill and could somebody sumarise.
You complain when the topic expands.
Now you think you have asked me something that I'm dodging? I'm not Dodging anything. It's yoy that seems to find some of the topic uncomfortable to talk about judging by you list of complaints. :rolleyes:

But the you do this every thread. I should have predicted the shrill screech of you're dodging would start, ironically you're the one dodging. :rolleyes:


EVERY
SINGLE
THREAD

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

Will you evet get real

Well Nozzferrahhtoo's rule strikes again it seems. And so quickly too. First you ignore replies to you, then you reply having pretty much claimed you will not be. Can we have some level of honesty here from you please?

jameorahiely wrote: »

You complain when I reply to the thread.

Never did that no.

jameorahiely wrote: »

You complain when I don't reply specifically to you.

HALF true, I complain when you do not reply to me when I have replied to you, or when you claim to want answers to questions that were answered in posts you have ignored.

jameorahiely wrote: »

You complain you can't read the thread because I'm too shrill and could somebody sumarise.

Also not quite what I did either no.

jameorahiely wrote: »

You complain when the topic expands.

Never did that either no, that was YOU that did that and I merely showed that it is possible to respond in kind.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Now you think you have asked me something that I'm dodging? I'm not Dodging anything.

Except all the stuff I just pointed out in previous posts that you DID dodge, including whole posts and whole arguments and whole rebuttals.

jameorahiely wrote: »

It's yoy that seems to find some of the topic uncomfortable to talk about

Nope, that you have ENTIRELY invented in your own head I am afraid.

jameorahiely wrote: »

But the you do this every thread.

Nope, that you have ENTIRELY invented in your own head I am afraid.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I should have predicted the shrill screech of you're dodging would start, ironically you're the one dodging. EVERY SINGLE THREAD

Yet when I say you have dodged something I ALWAYS say specifically what it was. Here you just declare I have been dodging but of course have not shown a single thing that I have dodged at all. Let alone in "every single thread".

Quite the opposite is true, as a simple reading of the last couple of pages of this thread will show, as I have not dodged, but specifically replied to, a MULTITUDE of "points" from you. Replies that, of course, you have yet to address or acknowledge or respond to.

robindch

Mod:

Folks -

jameorahiely wrote: »

Now you think you have asked me something that I'm dodging? I'm not Dodging anything. It's yoy that seems to find some of the topic uncomfortable to talk about judging by you list of complaints.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Never did that either no, that was YOU that did that and I merely showed that it is possible to respond in kind.

When a conversation breaks down into I-said/you-said, it's really time to step back and take a break.

Thanking youze.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

I want more imformation on what the aim is.

Would you care to elucidate?

These links/information night which you can use to find the answer to your question. Alternatively there's the People's Assembly which might have relevant answers. It's meetings are broadcast and Cora Sherlock has attended them, she might be helpful to you. Link 1 is to Repeal.ie. Link 2 is to Repeal Eight and link 3 is to A.R.C.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiXn8XXstvSAhWLLcAKHRDjCggQFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.repeal.ie%2F&usg=AFQjCNHNZQkrqEuz2IDK5UiG0IQ7H5RfiA

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiXn8XXstvSAhWLLcAKHRDjCggQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.repealeight.ie%2F&usg=AFQjCNHtl_GlBYgLmXo_9VS_ZuX3XmQ4XA

http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hi, thanks for asking. I think we all have 100% free right to autonomy in all things UP UNTIL the point that our choices and actions (or inactions maybe) impact on other sentient entities.

At SOME point in the process after conception the fetus goes from a blob of living and developing cells to an entity with the faculty of sentience and consciousness. The moment this happens it becomes an entity to which I have to hold moral and ethical concern. Because if moral and ethical concern, and concepts like "rights", are NOT being hung off that attribute..... I genuinely have to admit I do not know what they ARE being mediated on.

Our main issue is that we do not know exactly when this happens. There might not even BE a single moment when it happens. Like looking at RED and ORANGE on a rainbow.... we know where "red" is, we know where "orange" is.... but there is no single point where red stops being red and starts being orange.

Consciousness is very much like that. We can identify entities that lack it entirely (a zygote or a rock)...... and entities that have it (you and I)......... but we can only make educated guesses as to exactly how and where and when such a transition occurs.

So the best we can do is balance probabilities and likelihoods based on what we DO know. And everything we DO know tells us that the MAJORITY of abortions happen at a period in time when there is no reason to see the fetus as worthy of moral and ethical concern. And so it is a service we can, in good conscience, offer.

But at SOME point it does make that transition. And in the absence of knowledge absolutes in this regard I think we have to do our best with the data we do have to estimate the best time we can as to when we have made that transition from a single moral entity of concern (the pregnant woman) to two of them, and act accordingly.



Which argument? Is it possible you have me mixed up with someone else? As I genuinely recall no argument I have ever made that is contradicted by maintaining term limits on how long we would in good conscience offer abortions as a service.

Really now,that is just a preposterous statement to make.The claim that human life,no matter which stage of development it is at,is in any sense comparable with a rock in unworthy of serious discussion.This human life possesses its own gender,its own unique DNA and blood type.These are all traits which naturally forming substances/minerals do not possess.This is a defence I never envisaged myself having to make but the case for abortion seems to be unique in its attempts to redefine the definition of a human being and thus deny the rights which that recognition bestows.
The human heart beat begins at 6 weeks,by 10 weeks the circulatory/digestive/nervous systems are developing,by 12 weeks the limbs are well developed and the child makes fists with his/her fingers,by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.
So knowing all these facts and many more,Do you still maintain that your morals and ethics would be compatible with Dilation and evacuation(Dismemberment of the foetus with a surgical forceps)abortion?

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

Really now,that is just a preposterous statement to make.The claim that human life,no matter which stage of development it is at,is in any sense comparable with a rock in unworthy of serious discussion.This human life possesses its own gender,its own unique DNA and blood type.These are all traits which naturally forming substances/minerals do not possess.This is a defence I never envisaged myself having to make but the case for abortion seems to be unique in its attempts to redefine the definition of a human being and thus deny the rights which that recognition bestows.
The human heart beat begins at 6 weeks,by 10 weeks the circulatory/digestive/nervous systems are developing,by 12 weeks the limbs are well developed and the child makes fists with his/her fingers,by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.
So knowing all these facts and many more,Do you still maintain that your morals and ethics would be compatible with Dilation and evacuation(Dismemberment of the foetus with a surgical forceps)abortion?

Or as described in this link..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjc0q2s1N_SAhWhK8AKHd7SAZ0QFggxMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webmd.com%2Fwomen%2Fdilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion&usg=AFQjCNEaCc_1JFgLCb8BGXNMWuC_8ryrwA

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

This human life possesses its own gender,its own unique DNA and blood type.

The human heart beat begins at 6 weeks,by 10 weeks the circulatory/digestive/nervous systems are developing,by 12 weeks the limbs are well developed and the child makes fists with his/her fingers,by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.

If you look at these traits that you list up to 16 weeks, the first are common to most animal life, the second to most mammals and many other animals. Yet at the same time a typical pro-life activist we show few moral qualms in killing a mouse or eating a burger. As such, it is evident that these common traits alone are not what makes life worth protecting, as they do not describe what it is to be a person.

Your moral outrage seems misplaced until you can you can give use some idea of what it is that makes this fetus a person above and beyond the traits you list.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

by 16 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the child's entire body and nerves link these to the brain and he/she begins moving in the womb.
So knowing all these facts and many more,Do you still maintain that your morals and ethics would be compatible with Dilation and evacuation(Dismemberment of the foetus with a surgical forceps)abortion?

If these facts mean that the 16 week fetus may actually feel pain (which I gather is your implied claim) would you care to speculate as to why nobody ever suggests anesthetizing a fetus during miscarriage?

Do you think this is a terrible oversight which science requires to be rectified asap, or are you only interested in abortions and don't actually care one hoot about whether fetuses might suffer during miscarriage?

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

would you care to speculate as to why nobody ever suggests anesthetizing a fetus during miscarriage?

I presume being expelled from the body prematurely would not be a painful experience for it, even if it had full pain sensory awareness. It would be different if somebody was attempting to do a vivisection on it.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I presume being expelled from the body prematurely would not be a painful experience for it, even if it had full pain sensory awareness. It would be different if somebody was attempting to do a vivisection on it.

So an abortion in which the foetus is expelled intact cannot be painful either then, is the logical conclusion? Which is, IMUIC, how all but the very late abortions are generally carried out. The fetal sac is expelled in one piece, and the remaining debris is the placenta, the lining of the uterus etc.

And perhaps you are too young to remember the supposedly aborted fetuses in jars that we were shown by SPUC when they used to come round to secondary schools in the 80s? They were very baby-like, no question of them being ripped apart iirc. That only became a pro life thing a few years ago. Presumably fetuses in jars were old hat by then. So their story changed to fit the new narrative.

But in any case, if pain is possible, why wouldn't death itself be painful? The miscarried, or aborted, fetus