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

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…210211213215216…325

Comments

  • Options
    #6362
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You are arguing the tumour is a separate human life. Just like the person on the repeal side here who argued a poo is.
    Maybe the education system in this country is failing.


  • Options
    #6363
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    why does it matter what it looks like?


  • Options
    #6364
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Not because it looks human, because it *is* human


  • Options
    #6365
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #6366
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6367
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Fits into the hand the same way.

    You’re going by size?? Seriously? ‘It’s the same size, so that’s good enough’?


  • Options
    #6368
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pleas advice wrote: »
    Not because it looks human, because it *is* human

    Biologically it is yes. No one has denied that here AT ALL. The reason Robert and his cohort ignore my posts however is they know I am more than able to explain the differences between the various uses of the word "human".

    And they know as well as I do that the defining characteristics of "human" that are actually relevant to rights, morals and ethics are precisely the ones the fetus lacks.

    And I have schooled them on that so many times in the past that now literally ignoring every post I make is the only recourse open to them. They know damn well that they can not link any of the attributes a fetus has at 12 weeks gestation to any concept of rights or moral and ethical concern.

    "Oooo look at its little fingers" or as one user I can think of "ooo look at it's moving tongue" really does not cut it.


  • Options
    #6369
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #6370
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    pleas advice wrote: »
    Not because it looks human, because it *is* human

    No
    Already been there , no more a human than my toenail clippings.
    Move on


  • Options
    #6371
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭optogirl


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You are arguing the tumour is a separate human life. Just like the person on the repeal side here who argued a poo is.
    Maybe the education system in this country is failing.

    But Robert you are arguing that it is fine to put up posters with these images because that is the reality. Would you think it's perfectly fine that a, say, 8 year old who just lost a sibling to still birth should have to look at these images as she walks to school? Or perhaps a 13 year old who has been raped and is pregnant? Do you think children should see images of people copulating - after all, it's just the reality. Do you think I should explain my brain surgery to my children by showing them the procedure?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6372
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is about what is proposed which is 12 weeks unrestricted abortion if repeal wins.
    It is an innocent human life.

    How is that any different to the status quo, where the majority of women who have abortions do so within the first 12 weeks?


  • Options
    #6373
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    baylah17 wrote: »
    No
    Already been there , no more a human than my toenail clippings.
    Move on
    A bit more... A lot more,

    It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?


  • Options
    #6374
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    pleas advice wrote: »
    A bit more... A lot more,

    It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?
    the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.


  • Options
    #6375
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Next post :pac:
    baylah17 wrote: »
    No
    no more a human than my toenail clippings.


  • Options
    #6376
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pleas advice wrote: »
    A bit more... A lot more, It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

    No is denying that fact. They are denying the RELEVANCE of that fact. For good reason given you and the number of people who have asserted the fact have failed to explain it's relevance. Rights and morality do not appear to be mediated by separation or individuality.

    Either in our species or any other. The last cow you ate, assuming you are not vegetarian, was a separate entity too. Individuality does not appear to be at all relevant. If we were all genetics clones of each other we would (or should) still have all the same rights as we do today. If I was cloned perfectly tomorrow, my clone would deserve the same rights as me and as you, even though were are not genetically distinct.

    And in fact ask yourself what genetics have to do with it at all. If your consciousness could be instantiated on a computer server tomorrow, which is one of the goals of many modern research projects, would you have any less rights because your brain software was no longer running on a meat-carbon hardware system? Or would your sentience alone, and it's ability to suffer or attain well being, mean we should hold moral and ethical concern for that well being and that sentience?


  • Options
    #6377
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Next post :pac:

    That's not a denial that it's human though


  • Options
    #6378
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Maybe the education system in this country is failing.

    It clearly is if you thought what you posted was an accurate representation of a 12 week fetus.

    12 week fetus is completely different skin colour, different opacity of skin, no fully defined nose or ears, longer head, less defined mouth, disproportionate limbs, I could go on.

    I've held 12 week fetuses in my hand, and I wish with all my heart that they looked like what you posted, but they didn't.


  • Options
    #6379
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pleas advice wrote: »
    A bit more... A lot more,

    It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

    They do it as not to apply humanity to him/her, raises difficult questions for them to answer so they pretend tumours, poo and toenails are unique generic lives, as they never lie...


  • Options
    #6380
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    January wrote: »
    That's not a denial that it's human though

    So the poster saying "No", isn't a denial?


  • Options
    #6381
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Next post :pac:

    Human =/= A human being.

    Human being is defined as a man, woman, or child. (OED)

    Child is defined as between birth and puberty. (Biological standard definition)

    A foetus is not a human being until it has been born.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6382
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So the poster saying "No", isn't a denial?

    Read the whole post maybe


  • Options
    #6383
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    RobertKK wrote: »
    They do it as not to apply humanity to it, raises difficult questions for them to answer so they pretend tumours, poo and toenails are unique generic lives, as they never lie...

    You lied when you posted up that image stating that's what a 12 week old fetus looks like Robert.


  • Options
    #6384
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    kylith wrote: »
    Human =/= A human being.

    Human being is defined as a man, woman, or child. (OED)

    Child is defined as between birth and puberty. (Biological standard definition)

    A foetus is not a human being until it has been born.

    I'm aware of all that.


  • Options
    #6385
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    They do it as not to apply humanity to it, raises difficult questions for them to answer so they pretend tumours, poo and toenails are unique generic lives, as they never lie...

    I know you are dodging and retreating from my posts but I will ask again anyway in order to highlight to everyone you are ignoring posts and points you can not deal with.

    But exactly what attributes are you defining "Humanity" with as distinct from merely biologically "human" in taxonomy? And which of those attributes does a fetus at 12 weeks actually have.

    And what questions do you think are "difficult to answer"? Ask me some of them. I bet I answer them quite honestly, openly and without any difficulty at all.


  • Options
    #6386
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    January wrote: »
    Read the whole post maybe

    I did, the "No" seems to contradict the rest.


  • Options
    #6387
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    pleas advice wrote: »
    It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity.

    So appearance doesn't matter, just genetics?

    Oops, now all those test-tube embryos are human beings too, we must ban IVF, research and the morning after pill!

    Votes for blastocysts!


  • Options
    #6388
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    pleas advice wrote: »
    A bit more... A lot more,

    It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

    Your own B-cells and T-cells have human DNA but are genetically distinct from you. Similarly your own gametes. Having human DNA, being genetically unique and the combination of those two things is interesting but not grounds for human rights.


  • Options
    #6389
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So appearance doesn't matter, just genetics?

    Oops, now all those test-tube embryos are human beings too, we must ban IVF, research and the morning after pill!

    Votes for blastocysts!

    Don't give em ideas.


  • Options
    #6390
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    It clearly is if you thought what you posted was an accurate representation of a 12 week fetus.

    12 week fetus is completely different skin colour, different opacity of skin, no fully defined nose or ears, longer head, less defined mouth, disproportionate limbs, I could go on.

    I've held 12 week fetuses in my hand, and I wish with all my heart that they looked like what you posted, but they didn't.

    I don’t want to get into your personal life and what happened to your and your wife/partner.
    The unborn is opague but it is still a unique human life and of human form at that stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6391
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    You lied when you posted up that image stating that's what a 12 week old fetus looks like Robert.

    No I didn’t and I did state the colour was different in a later post. Nothing else is much different.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement