anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Billy86

If someone considers abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to be murder, then surely they should consider the likes of early stage miscarriages to be involuntary manslaughter.

infogiver

Grayson wrote: »

The start of higher brain activity. An active brain is what makes us human. If someone is brain dead, even though their body is living, they are considered dead. That part that makes them a human being is effectively gone.

When there's just a group of cells there there's no brain activity. That occurs later. That's when the seed of consciousness is places. That's when a person is created. Until then it's just, for lack of a better word, ingredients with the potential of becoming a person.

So you have no limit that can be measured in weeks? I don't agree with you about brain activity incidentally but I do want to press you for an amount of weeks.
8 weeks? 12 ? 24?

A Little Pony

Grayson wrote: »

infogiver wrote: »

So obviously you have a time limit in your head. What is your time limit?

The start of higher brain activity. An active brain is what makes us human. If someone is brain dead, even though their body is living, they are considered dead. That part that makes them a human being is effectively gone.

When there's just a group of cells there there's no brain activity. That occurs later. That's when the seed of consciousness is places. That's when a person is created. Until then it's just, for lack of a better word, ingredients with the potential of becoming a person.

After five weeks of pregnancy the development of the heart, brain and spinal cord begin to develop. But according to you, termination should be allowed at that stage. Sounds barbaric to kill off something which isn't even being given the chance to fully grow, an actual human being.

infogiver

Billy86 wrote: »

If someone considers abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to be murder, then surely they should consider the likes of early stage miscarriages to be involuntary manslaughter.

Manslaughter is when you unintentionally cause someone to die.
I sincerely hope that your not suggesting that any mother intentionally or unintentionally brought a miscarriage on herself?
That would be extremely hurtful to some posters or readers.

A Little Pony

infogiver wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

The start of higher brain activity. An active brain is what makes us human. If someone is brain dead, even though their body is living, they are considered dead. That part that makes them a human being is effectively gone.

When there's just a group of cells there there's no brain activity. That occurs later. That's when the seed of consciousness is places. That's when a person is created. Until then it's just, for lack of a better word, ingredients with the potential of becoming a person.

So you have no limit that can be measured in weeks? I don't agree with you about brain activity incidentally but I do want to press you for an amount of weeks.
8 weeks? 12 ? 24?

Facial features begin at 6 weeks. It is unacceptable frankly and I am not even part of any big pro life group or anything like that.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

If someone considers abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to be murder, then surely they should consider the likes of early stage miscarriages to be involuntary manslaughter.

More akin to one unintentionally killing oneself.

Billy86

infogiver wrote: »

Manslaughter is when you unintentionally cause someone to die.
I sincerely hope that your not suggesting that any mother intentionally or unintentionally brought a miscarriage on herself?
That would be extremely hurtful to some posters or readers.

No it asking for consistency.

Like you said, manslaughter is unintentionally causing someone to die. Nobody plans for a miscarriage, but it would have caused the 'person' to die, even if that 'person' was a foetus no more than a few weeks old. If you believe an early stage abortion is murder because you consider the foetus a person as of the moment the pregnancy began, then if you are consistent you surely you believe an early stage miscarriage is unintentional manslaughter because you consider the foetus a person as of the moment the pregnancy began.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

More akin to one unintentionally killing oneself.

But then early stage abortion would be the mither killing themselves and not the foetus/whatever it is considered by whomever.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Potential sex is different from having an actual life that can be terminated or not.
The potential is there in existence in the unborn life.

Actual life would imply a baby-not a fetus. Or if you want to go down that route you can think of the sperm that will die in the next several days or the egg in the next month.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Facial features begin at 6 weeks. It is unacceptable frankly and I am not even part of any big pro life group or anything like that.

I have old toys with facial features. They are also not considered people.

lawred2

RobertKK wrote: »

Abortion is fine if you can support the idea that one's own mother could have aborted you and that the life one has is not worthwhile.
One can ask themselves, is my life worthwhile?
Is my life worthwhile as I argue for or against abortion?
If I was never born, would it matter, would it be better or worse for others?

Your levels of self worth are not relevant to the topic of abortion.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

But then early stage abortion would be the mither killing themselves and not the foetus/whatever it is considered by whomever.

No, the mother doesn't decide if she has a miscarriage or not. One can see the unborn tries to live, but sometimes something is wrong and that is nature.
A mother can decide if she wants to end the life in her womb, totally different situations.

222233

RobertKK wrote: »

More akin to one unintentionally killing oneself.

If the eight amendment protects the life of the unborn child then for instance in the case of an accident, does the loss of the unborn life have the same legal rights as for example the mother in a court of law?

RobertKK

lawred2 wrote: »

Your levels of self worth are not relevant to the topic of abortion.

You will find I have a vote, so it is relevant.
My self worth always makes me go to the polling booth, I feel it is my duty to society.

A Little Pony

Christy42 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Facial features begin at 6 weeks. It is unacceptable frankly and I am not even part of any big pro life group or anything like that.

I have old toys with facial features. They are also not considered people.

Can't believe you are using that as an actual argument. It is probably the most stupid thing I have ever read.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can't believe you are using that as an actual argument. It is probably the most stupid thing I have ever read.

As opposed to your argument that a fetus has fail features at 6 weeks old and is therefore a person?!?

Your argument seemed to hinge on the existence of facial features being the importing quality. I was pointing out that facial features is a terrible definition for what is and isn't a person.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now remember... the slight movements you will see are "autonomic" and we are still "safe" to kill it at this stage as it's just a "blob of biological matter".

See, you're learning. Quite alot of what you present on this forum is exactly that, like your oral movements in response to music study that you produced. Your entire basis that time hinging around one of the writers saying that the movements were LIKE someone trying to speak. That was literally all you had then, and that is pretty much all you are presenting now.

Worse, the agenda of your presentation here is clear. The VAST majority of abortions by choice in places where they have access to it are done before 12 weeks. Over 90% vast I mean. If you want to show something that is actually representative of what is being debated therefore, THAT is the pictures and vidoes you should show. But you do not do that, you go to 24 weeks instead, and I think there is not a person here who does not know why.

RobertKK wrote: »

Abortion is fine if you can support the idea that one's own mother could have aborted you and that the life one has is not worthwhile

Nothing about my pro-choice stance on abortion requires that I devalue my own life. And I am perfectly happy with the notion that my mother COULD have aborted me. Clearly, she did not choose to do so.

Actually the opposite is true. My entire stance on abortion required me to think and explore deeply what it is about human life I actually value and care about. What makes human life worthwhile and value.

And then to identify whether those things were actually present in the vast majority of fetal abortions.

Answer: No, they do not.

RobertKK wrote: »

If I was never born, would it matter, would it be better or worse for others?

My parents used a lot of contraception. So I can ask the same question you just did without the complete reliance on retrospect that your position hinges on. Is my life, and the lives of others, better or worse for all the children they did not have due to that contraception?

A Little Pony wrote: »

Most pro abortion folk don't give a toss about time limit, it is the political ideology behind supporting it which matters to them.

That does not seem to match my experience. Do you have any figures you can cite to support this "most" claim. I have direct experience from online and off line debates in public and in private on the subject of abortion, and have researched a lot to do with it. And the quantity of people I have met who are pro-choice but without any kind of time limit I can literally count on one hand and still have fingers left over to have a kit-kat.

So to suddenly be told that ALL that experience counts for nothing and "most" of them do not care about a time limit..... leaves me skeptical. At best. So I am agog to see your substantiation for this one if you please.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Facial features begin at 6 weeks. It is unacceptable frankly and I am not even part of any big pro life group or anything like that.

Why are facial features relevant or important? If we someday, and it is not unlikely that we willl, create true AI, do you think an AI installed in a body with a fully human like face will, or should, have more rights than one installed in box with blinky lights for example?

I am not sure "facial features" is really that important or relevant, but I am open to hearing why you think it is before I simply dismiss it out of hand.

And what do you mean by "begin" exactly. That is, given the ongoing iterative process of fetal development, extremely vague.

RobertKK

222233 wrote: »

If the eight amendment protects the life of the unborn child then for instance in the case of an accident, does the loss of the unborn life have the same legal rights as for example the mother in a court of law?

In a hospital, for the unborn to live, the life of the mother has to live, if the mother is dead, both are dead.
That is the case in Ireland.

A Little Pony

Christy42 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can't believe you are using that as an actual argument. It is probably the most stupid thing I have ever read.

As opposed to your argument that a fetus has fail features at 6 weeks old and is therefore a person?!?

Your argument seemed to hinge on the existence of facial features being the importing quality. I was pointing out that facial features is a terrible definition for what is and isn't a person.

A toy can NOT ever develop into a human being, it has no chance of that, obviously. Facial features is very important.

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing about my pro-choice stance on abortion requires that I devalue my own life. And I am perfectly happy with the notion that my mother COULD have aborted me. Clearly, she did not choose to do so.

Actually the opposite is true. My entire stance on abortion required me to think and explore deeply what it is about human life I actually value and care about. What makes human life worthwhile and value.

And then to identify whether those things were actually present in the vast majority of fetal abortions.

Answer: No, they do not.



My parents used a lot of contraception. So I can ask the same question you just did without the complete reliance on retrospect that your position hinges on. Is my life, and the lives of others, better or worse for all the children they did not have due to that contraception?

We come from it at different angles, I cannot say I am alive because I was allowed to live, and thus I can decide if a life should not be allowed to have the same existence I have been allowed.

Contraception prevents a unique life with human DNA from forming, there is a not 'what if' as in terminating a life gives some women who do regret their decision.

infogiver

Billy86 wrote: »

No it asking for consistency.

Like you said, manslaughter is unintentionally causing someone to die. Nobody plans for a miscarriage, but it would have caused the 'person' to die, even if that 'person' was a foetus no more than a few weeks old. If you believe an early stage abortion is murder because you consider the foetus a person as of the moment the pregnancy began, then if you are consistent you surely you believe an early stage miscarriage is unintentional manslaughter because you consider the foetus a person as of the moment the pregnancy began.

I should have been clearer
Manslaughter is when you take a course of action which results in someone's death even though that was not your intention
Agreed?
So, you agree that in saying that suffering a miscarriage could be viewed as involuntary manslaughter implies that the mother took a course of action that resulted in a miscarriage.
In other words that miscarriages are caused by wrong desicions on behalf of the mother.
And that that suggestion can cause pain and hurt?

222233

RobertKK wrote: »

In a hospital, for the unborn to live, the life of the mother has to live, if the mother is dead, both are dead.
That is the case in Ireland.

But in a court of law is the loss of both lives equal ? If the eight protects the rights of the unborn than for example if a pregnant woman is killed than the offender is guilty of two counts of murder?

Everyone on the pro-life side seems to argue that the eight amendment protects the rights of the unborn child so I'm assuming the same rights are afforded to the unborn child in Ireland as to any other person?

It seems like an incredibly confusing thing.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

We come from it at different angles

Not really. In both cases we are engaging in whatiffery about lives that might have existed or might not. In both cases we are both offering irrelevant nonsense.

The fact is many people do exist, and many people that do not exist might otherwise have were things different. So what? Human rights should be applied to, and be relevant to, people who actually exist. Not people that we imagine might.

A pregnant woman is a person that exists. A fetus is a person that MIGHT. I see no reason to give it rights. Let alone rights that supersede and override those of the person who does actually exist.

RobertKK

222233 wrote: »

But in a court of law is the loss of both lives equal ? If the eight protects the rights of the unborn than for example if a pregnant woman is killed than the offender is guilty of two counts of murder?

Everyone on the pro-life side seems to argue that the eight amendment protects the rights of the unborn child so I'm assuming the same rights are afforded to the unborn child in Ireland as to any other person?

It seems like an incredibly confusing thing.

I am not going to pretend I know what stance the law takes on that.

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really. In both cases we are engaging in whatiffery about lives that might have existed or might not. In both cases we are both offering irrelevant nonsense.

The fact is many people do exist, and many people that do not exist might otherwise have were things different. So what? Human rights should be applied to, and be relevant to, people who actually exist. Not people that we imagine might.

A pregnant woman is a person that exists. A fetus is a person that MIGHT. I see no reason to give it rights. Let alone rights that supersede and override those of the person who does actually exist.

Life in the womb exists, it is not whatiffery, and it is not whatiffery that we all lived in the womb of our mothers., and that being allowed to be born gives us a lot of power which we can use for or against the most vulnerable in society, which includes the unborn.
As I posted earlier, we have people alive who survived abortions, very few of them seem to wish the abortion had been successful.

222233

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not going to pretend I know what stance the law takes on that.

Does anyone know? What is the purpose of the eight if the unborn doesn't have the exact same rights as every other citizen? Is it literally just there to stop women from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

A toy can NOT ever develop into a human being, it has no chance of that, obviously. Facial features is very important.

Sure they are.

A toy can have facial features and not be a person. In theory someone could have a deformity so that they have no facial features and would still be called a person. Therefore facial features unimportant for establishing of something is a person .

Grayson

A Little Pony wrote: »

After five weeks of pregnancy the development of the heart, brain and spinal cord begin to develop. But according to you, termination should be allowed at that stage. Sounds barbaric to kill off something which isn't even being given the chance to fully grow, an actual human being.

Development of the brain does not mean brain activity. That happens between the 12th and 16th week. The thalamus isn't developed until weeks later.

Edit: Incidentally I didn't see you point out anywhere someone has said they are for unlimited, no time limit, terminations.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.