Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

amcalester

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

/Cringe



Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.

Is it that prochoicers keep backslapping your posts (or PMing you - as you posted elsewhere) that has resulted in you incorrectly thinking it has merit, is that it? Is it a numbers thing? It must be, as it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals and they want something to hang their hat on when it comes to justifying the endorsement of the killing developing human beings. Evidenced by (as you've just seen) a poster delegating replies to you. I guess they think your ability to keep posting longwinded needlessly convoluted irrelevant walls of text is someone a coherent argument. I assure you, it's not. Well, not to anyone with any regard for commonsense at least.



Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.



If the 'expense' you're alluding to is a risk to life, well then they shouldn't, which is why most people who would identify as prolife have no issue with abortions carried out under those particular circumstances and a few other ones also.



No, because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have.

Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being who is very much alive and to suggest what is seen below is just autonomic movement from a blob of biological human shaped matter (or a zygote in the case of your good self) is about a ridiculous a view at it is for someone to say that we live on a flat Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

Considering the winning margin it’s not just boards that has a high number of liberals.

Loafing Oaf

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

Absurd but true apparently...

Plumbthedepths

theological wrote:

Pro-life views won't go away because of the referendum and people have every right to continue questioning the ethics of abortion in a free society.

By all means question, have your views as is your right, but in the grand scheme of things redundant as women now have the right to decide whether they wish to be pregnant or not for whatever reason.

Outlaw Pete

pinkyeye wrote: »

So this has turned into another abortion debate.

The main reason I haven't posted on this thread to any great is so as not to turn it into yet another abortion debate thread, there's enough of them, but when I see others doing just that, and posting the usual drivel, it's kinda hard to sit back and say nowt.

It's over lads, why are we still debating it.

Abortion has (essentially at least) been legal in the UK, America (and many other parts of the world of course) for many years and yet the abortion debate has gone on in those countries despite that. Hell, if anything it has been more prevalent and so, there's no reason Ireland should be any different.

I suspect abortion will always be a contentious issue and legislation may change multiple times over the years, if other countries are anything to go by, which is another reason the debate will likely continue.

Either way, just because something is legal does not automatically make it either ethical or moral.

Plumbthedepths

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Either way, just because something is legal does not automatically make it either ethical or moral.

In your opinion, personally ethics or morality has nothing to do with it.

Loafing Oaf

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I suspect abortion will always be a contentious issue and legislation may change multiple times over the years, if other countries are anything to go by,

Which other countries?

theological

pinkyeye wrote: »

So this has turned into another abortion debate. It's over lads, why are we still debating it.

This point is poignant. Irish culture seems to prefer the hive mind to out of the box or more maverick thinking.

Conversations are over just because the establishment declares them to be over.

Those on the more liberal and progressive side of this and a whole host of other issues don't seem to understand that this is the same kind of thinking that the conservative Catholic Ireland used to keep its orthodoxy in place.

Don't question. Know your place. Why are you contradicting us? Don't you see we control the discourse?

Surely you can see this is an unhealthy way to engage with thinking. Truth be told I'm a bit of a contrarian these days. I like exploring unpopular arguments precisely because they aren't popular. It's almost the draw to them. Often I find that they are more rational than what is popular on examination.

Outlaw Pete

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

In your opinion, personally ethics or morality has nothing to do with it.

Personal and moral ethics have everything to do with it as they are how humanity determines what is right and wrong and indeed are what generally inform the way in which a person votes (with regards to if something should or should not be legal).

Someone who believes abortion is moral and ethical would unlikely have changed their mind had the vote gone the other way and so I'm bemused when I read people suggesting that because it went this way, prolifers should now just shut up about it an accept the result, as if it was football match or something.

I'd suggest that anyone that was prolife before the referendum but subsequently changed their minds because of the outcome of it, can't have had too much ethical and moral regard for developing first trimester babies to begin with.

Plumbthedepths

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Personal and moral ethics have everything to do with it as they are how humanity determines what is right and wrong and indeed are what generally inform the way in which a person votes (with regards to if something should or should not be legal).

Not everyone shares the same morals or ethnics hence why law takes precedence.

Plumbthedepths

Outlaw Pete wrote:

I'd suggest that anyone that was prolife before the referendum but subsequently changed their minds because of the outcome of it, can't have had too much ethical and moral regard for developing first trimester 'foetus' to begin with.

I get the emotive use of the word baby but I took the time to insert the correct term.

nozzferrahhtoo

theological wrote: »

I'd appreciate the pro-choice side more if they were honest and argued that killing an unborn child is justifiable in certain circumstances rather than trying to dehumanise the unborn.

You think people who are not you are more honest if they start espousing YOUR positions rather than their own? You have an odd definition of "honest" there, differing quite a lot from my own.

But no the issue is not that we dehumanise anything. The issue is that you unjustifiable humanise things before their due and without any substance explaining why you do so.

If you don't find it concerning that's entirely up to you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.

No it has not. What HAS happened is you show up periodically to make a post like this SAYING it has been rebutted, then when I reply you run away for some days of weeks, and then show up and make the same post again containing all the things I rebutted and destroyed in the post you previously entirely ignored.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Is it that prochoicers keep backslapping your posts (or PMing you - as you posted elsewhere) that has resulted in you incorrectly thinking it has merit, is that it?

The fact that you can not rebut a single aspect of my posts, nor can anyone else it seems, that makes me think they have merit. We work the same in Science for example. We do not prove things true in science. Rather we continuously test them to see if they are false and "merit" is gained for the Theories that hold up to scrutiny.

Actually a lot of my PMs come from the anti choicers, usually in the form of threats, insults and personal attacks. Not finding much merit in them either.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Is it a numbers thing? It must be, as it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

See what I mean about merely SAYING my positions have no merit but you do so without substance? You can CALL it "absurd" and do nothing else over and over again, but calling it absurd does not make it so.

What you could try, but never once have tried, is to establish an argument as to why we should have moral and ethical concern for something with the exact same moral and ethical attributes of a rock. Rather than just saying it is absurd, explain how and why it is. For once. For the first time. Have at it!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals

Take it up with them then, I do not go in for this imported american bi-partisan lingo that you are so often controlled by. Though your comment on boards seems to ignore the result of the referendum entirely which shows that the precentage in Irelands society IN GENERAL is congruent.

I do not see myself or anyone else in these terms. I just evaluate their arguments in a given context. Which I can not do since you have not actually provided any. Words like "Liberal" are just words you seem to use solely in the context of constructing a persecution complex and persecution narrative for yourself. It is not that you have provided no arguments.... in your head..... it is just that this liberal cohort are all out to get you! Puhh-leeeese.

When you hide behind attacks on generic and generalised labels like "Liberal" to deflect from the actual topic at hand.... then you are off on your own conversation which I am not part of.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I guess they think your ability to keep posting longwinded needlessly convoluted irrelevant walls of text is somehow a coherent argument. I assure you, it's not. Well, not to anyone with any regard for commonsense at least.

Same as above when you shout "absurd" without actually making an argument, shouting "common sense" and "incoherent" and "convoluted" and other such words says more about your content than mine. Very much so as it does not refer to anything I said, let alone rebut anything I said, at all. Even a little bit.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.

You are begging the question with that reply however. It is a circular reply. Further it linguistically shoots yourself in the foot. Because when you are talking about a life they are "likely to have" you are, linguistically, referring to one they do NOT have. However you are begging the question more than anything else here as you are answering the question about why that life should be morally or ethically relevant with an answer that pre-supposes that that life should be morally and ethically relevant. And you have the comedic gall to say MY positions are absurd, incoherent, and convoluted. You are comedy gold here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being

Footage that, like your obsession with tongues flapping around, you have set to actually explain the relevance of in anyway. We all know what it LOOKS like. What we do not know is why what it LOOKS like is meant to be at all relevant?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

to suggest what is seen below is just autonomic movement from a 'blob of biological human shaped matter' (or a 'zygote' at ten weeks - in the case of your good self) is about a ridiculous a view as it is for someone to say that we live on a flat Earth.

At least the Flat Earthers offer SOME evidence for their views. Easily rebutted evidence sure, but they at least make the attempt. But as with your shouts of "absurd" merely likening a position to Flat Earth without saying WHY it is ridiculous is a weak rhetorical move.

The simple fact is that without a consciousness or sentience in play then the movements you observe at that early stage of development ARE autonomic. Whether they be hiccuping..... responding to an aural stimulus (like the flapping tongue study you contrived to misrepresent)..... or withdrawing from a pain stimulus like a needle.

That YOU have emotional responses when you see a fetus move in this way is clear. The basis for your emotional response is couched entirely in error, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of reality however.

SusieBlue

Thanks Nozz, you just saved me a lot of tedious typing.

hcf500

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I get the emotive use of the word baby but I took the time to insert the correct term.

This.

Its not a baby until it starts breathing!

suicide_circus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

Ewwwww! Gross parasite! Kill it!!

hcf500

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ewwwww! Gross parasite! Kill it!!

You are right. Technically it is a parasite!

suicide_circus

hcf500 wrote: »

You are right. Technically it is a parasite!

wouldnt call it a "person" until a year after birth tbh

Deebles McBeebles

Wouldn't call it a person until it gets a damn job. Abortion up to 17 years should be legalised next.

political analyst

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/dispute-delaying-abortion-investigation-goes-to-mediation-1.4136188

A mediator is to be appointed in a last-ditch effort to resolve disagreements that have delayed the investigation of an abortion carried out at the National Maternity Hospital last year.



Both the hospital and the couple involved have agreed to the involvement of a mediator to help resolve disagreements that have delayed by more than seven months the promised review into the circumstances of a termination carried out after an incorrect test result.



The mediator, expected to be a prominent senior barrister, will begin work on the case shortly.

The couple have objected to the composition of the review panel proposed by the hospital and have argued the investigating team should comprise experts who have no previous professional links to hospital staff, such as consultants from continental Europe.



The hospital has rejected this proposal, though it has agreed that the couple be allowed to nominate additional experts to the review panel. There have also been disagreements over the provision of medical records in their entirety which have been complicated by difficulties providing printed and complete copies of the woman’s electronic health file.

Why has the hospital rejected what has been proposed by the couple?

margo321

[and what is it. Is it a shoe a horse. What is it. Is was living then was killed/aborted. The body parts are sold in most countries and guess what as human body parts so like it or not it was a live human baby.

quote="hcf500;110523092"]This.

Its not a baby until it starts breathing![/quote]

nthclare

Abortion is always a **** storm of a topic.

Which came first? a person's choice or the egg?

I've seen friendships shattered over the topic.

Usually it's the Liberal/SJW types who go postal on the people who don't want abortion.
Screaming and shouting at the people who disagree with abortion.

The way I see it, make your choice if you like your body your choice.

It's an emotional roller coaster.

Best thing is to accept people's opinion and not drawn unwanted drama on yourself etc

ohnonotgmail

nthclare wrote: »

Abortion is always a **** storm of a topic.

Which came first? a person's choice or the egg?

I've seen friendships shattered over the topic.

Usually it's the Liberal/SJW types who go postal on the people who don't want abortion.
Screaming and shouting at the people who disagree with abortion.

The way I see it, make your choice if you like your body your choice.

It's an emotional roller coaster.

Best thing is to accept people's opinion and not drawn unwanted drama on yourself etc

well that is a pisspoor understanding of reality.

Redneck Reject71

To me it is a very sad story. A life lost before it could really begin.

Rufeo

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/dispute-delaying-abortion-investigation-goes-to-mediation-1.4136188

Co's surely Hospitals here like to cover stuff up. Or stack the deck in their favour.

beejee

Some of the popular opinions on abortion are just atrocious, both sides of the argument.

One of the old chestnuts is posted above, that a life isn't a life until some arbitrary cellular distinction dictated by time (they aren't dependent on each other either)

What a load of cobblers. Who in their right mind can believe that?

Granted, it brings up serious conundrums with birth control, but this arbitrary thing is crazy. If somebody "believes" that life begins at 5 weeks, for arguments sake, how do they feel about 4 weeks and 4 days?

What about 1 second to midnight on the 5th week? 2 minutes after?

A spade is a spade, except when i choose to believe it isn't.

Whatever about all the other controversy surrounding abortion, this particular "belief" barely withstands the scrutiny of an eye-less, ear-less bat. The psychology behind such a thing must be somewhat interesting, that if you (literally) dehumanise a "thing", it's far, far easier to manipulate it. Huh!

nthclare

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well that is a pisspoor understanding of reality.

Your word salad is much more bitter than mine, add some sugar and sweeten up cupcake

ohnonotgmail

nthclare wrote: »

Your word salad is much more bitter than mine, add some sugar and sweeten up cupcake

try reconstructing an argument instead of telling other people what their opinions are.

nthclare

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

try reconstructing an argument instead of telling other people what their opinions are.

Ironic coming from that post lapping up the thanks I see

Quantum Erasure

political analyst wrote: »

The couple have objected to the composition of the review panel proposed by the hospital and have argued the investigating team should comprise experts who have no previous professional links to hospital staff, such as consultants from continental Europe.

Why has the hospital rejected what has been proposed by the couple?

cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things

nozzferrahhtoo

beejee wrote: »

One of the old chestnuts is posted above, that a life isn't a life until some arbitrary cellular distinction dictated by time (they aren't dependent on each other either)

Then the goal should be to find a distinction that is less arbitrary. SOME distinction has to be chosen after all as there clearly must be a divide somewhere. So the best we can do is strive for the least arbitrary and most coherent divide we can use.

It should be one that accounts for the fact the word "life" has at least two distinct but equally important meanings in this context.

It should be one that is defensible by rational argument too. Supporting ones position, or rebutting someone elses, merely by appeal to phrases like "right mind" "crazy" "cobblers" "blind bat" is rarely indicative that such arguments are in play from the speaker of those phrases.

However when it comes to law and policy SOME arbitrary nature is always in play. It is never perfect. So let us not pretend it needs to be! Take, as a random example, the fact we allow alcohol at age 18. Why not 17 and 364 days? "What about 1 second to midnight? 2 minutes after?" to use your words? The reality is SOME people are ready for alcohol at age 16. Others I know at age 40 should still never have touched the stuff.

beejee wrote: »

Whatever about all the other controversy surrounding abortion, this particular "belief" barely withstands the scrutiny of an eye-less, ear-less bat. The psychology behind such a thing must be somewhat interesting, that if you (literally) dehumanise a "thing", it's far, far easier to manipulate it. Huh!

I find the charge of "dehumanization" to be a common but unfounded one on threads like this. What is ACTUALLY happening too often is someone has humanized it before it's due, in an unwarranted fashion. And rather than validate that move they merely pretend their position is default and true, and any contrary position they merely scream "dehumanization" at it in the hope that the charge sticks like flinging spaghetti at a wall.

Yet one can not dehumanize something that should never have been humanized in the first place. You can not uncook a raw egg. Certainly not by merely pretending the egg has been cooked and merely accusing anyone who disagrees of uncooking it.

Graces7

"Man's inhumanity to man"

Zubeneschamali

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things

They are lining up for a compo case.

political analyst

Rufeo wrote: »

Co's surely Hospitals here like to cover stuff up. Or stack the deck in their favour.

But the hospital must have told the baby's parents why it's not doing what they want it to, right?! I'm sure that the threat of legal action might concentrate its mind.

political analyst

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things

Videoconferencing would solve those problems, wouldn't it?

Sofiztikated

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things

It could be more along the lines of the "experts" in mind.

beejee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then the goal should be to find a distinction that is less arbitrary. SOME distinction has to be chosen after all as there clearly must be a divide somewhere. So the best we can do is strive for the least arbitrary and most coherent divide we can use.

It should be one that accounts for the fact the word "life" has at least two distinct but equally important meanings in this context.

It should be one that is defensible by rational argument too. Supporting ones position, or rebutting someone elses, merely by appeal to phrases like "right mind" "crazy" "cobblers" "blind bat" is rarely indicative that such arguments are in play from the speaker of those phrases.

However when it comes to law and policy SOME arbitrary nature is always in play. It is never perfect. So let us not pretend it needs to be! Take, as a random example, the fact we allow alcohol at age 18. Why not 17 and 364 days? "What about 1 second to midnight? 2 minutes after?" to use your words? The reality is SOME people are ready for alcohol at age 16. Others I know at age 40 should still never have touched the stuff.



I find the charge of "dehumanization" to be a common but unfounded one on threads like this. What is ACTUALLY happening too often is someone has humanized it before it's due, in an unwarranted fashion. And rather than validate that move they merely pretend their position is default and true, and any contrary position they merely scream "dehumanization" at it in the hope that the charge sticks like flinging spaghetti at a wall.

Yet one can not dehumanize something that should never have been humanized in the first place. You can not uncook a raw egg. Certainly not by merely pretending the egg has been cooked and merely accusing anyone who disagrees of uncooking it.

I'll 100% stand behind my use of the likes of "cobblers" and "crazy", because arbitrarily assigning a social construct to the natural world is, indeed, cobblers and crazy.

In your rambling reply you go straight to social constructs of law to justify random ideas. It's a dreadful comparison. Biology and science are not dictated by feelings, and when you apply social construct, it is essentially feelings and emotion.

Life begins at cellular fusion. End of story. Argue about laws all you like, it won't alter the fact of the matter.

If you intervene at any stage after cellular fusion, you are preventing life from continuing it's course. It brings up the ethical question of birth control, but that's an extra issue to the one at hand.

And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history, and it will occur on microscales within individual lives too. The nazis dehumanised Jewish people in order to make it "easier" to do away with them, and it worked. What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.

Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.

nthclare

beejee wrote: »

I'll 100% stand behind my use of the likes of "cobblers" and "crazy", because arbitrarily assigning a social construct to the natural world is, indeed, cobblers and crazy.

In your rambling reply you go straight to social constructs of law to justify random ideas. It's a dreadful comparison. Biology and science are not dictated by feelings, and when you apply social construct, it is essentially feelings and emotion.

Life begins at cellular fusion. End of story. Argue about laws all you like, it won't alter the fact of the matter.

If you intervene at any stage after cellular fusion, you are preventing life from continuing it's course. It brings up the ethical question of birth control, but that's an extra issue to the one at hand.

And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history, and it will occur on microscales within individual lives too. The nazis dehumanised Jewish people in order to make it "easier" to do away with them, and it worked. What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.

Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.

I don't think many can debunk that post.
Society is saturated with manipulation of the truth.
And its not a big ploy for power over the people or some kind of conspiracy theory.

Its just human nature to use tippex to cover the unwanted issues or opinions, there's still ink underneath.

Or the person who comes up with a great idea for something that makes life easier and its stolen from them, some say well he should have patented it, others will say your man's a bad bstrd for stealing that idea.

Its human nature to be different and sometimes people are dishonest and just agree for fear of retribution and live with the lie.
So as not to upset the people who don't care about them in the first place.
Trying to fit in.

I love metaphorical thinking about things.

nozzferrahhtoo

beejee wrote: »

I'll 100% stand behind my use of the likes of "cobblers" and "crazy", because arbitrarily assigning a social construct to the natural world is, indeed, cobblers and crazy.

And I stand by the response that if calling it names is all you can do, and you can not rebut it with actual argument, then you have no actual point to make. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.

As I said we take somewhat arbitrary cut off points all the time in law and in policy. Out of necessity. If there was a better way we would likely use it, but no one has proposed one yet. Age of consent. Legality of Alcohol. Age of voting. Cut off points in abortion. The list goes on.

Thankfully rather than just flinging labels and insults however, these cut off points tend to be based on SOME level of rational argument, evidence, data and reasoning.

beejee wrote: »

In your rambling reply you go straight to social constructs of law to justify random ideas. It's a dreadful comparison. Biology and science are not dictated by feelings, and when you apply social construct, it is essentially feelings and emotion.

Your lack of ability to understand text does not mean the text is rambling. It was perfectly coherent. You just like demeaning labels to rebut things you can not rebut with reason.

The problem is no one here, least of all me, is suggesting "Biology and science are dictated by feelings". That is just your misrepresentation of what was said. Put away the straw.

No, in fact I preempted that non-reply by pointing out that it is important to understand the difference in the word "life" in seperate contexts. Because there is a difference between "life" as defined by biology and science.... and "life" as in the philosophical meaning. While the former has little to do with human feeling and subjectivity, the latter somewhat does. You ignore the very distinction I expressely recommended you note therefore.

beejee wrote: »

Life begins at cellular fusion. End of story. Argue about laws all you like, it won't alter the fact of the matter.

Yet no one is taking issue with that "fact" at all. Least of all me. I certainly COULD take some issue with it if you want as it is not as clear cut as you pretend. But the point(s) I have made to you in the previous post have nothing to do with that, so there is no reason to take issue with it or argue it at all.

beejee wrote: »

If you intervene at any stage after cellular fusion, you are preventing life from continuing it's course. It brings up the ethical question of birth control, but that's an extra issue to the one at hand.

A big "so what?" has to be flung in the direction of that however. We "prevent life from continuing it's course" all the time. We cut down trees. Kill animals for meat. Use Anti Biotics and pesticides. Swat wasps and flies. And so on. We are n the business of "preventing life from continuing it's course" every day, in the billions.

So if one wants to argue that any particular life should not be discontinued, or that it is somehow morally or ethically wrong to do so, then you need a philosophical and ethical argument with more substance than merely screaming the word "life" at the problem.

beejee wrote: »

And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history

Agreed. It has. But just because it occured THEN does not mean it is occuring HERE. You are deflecting in other words. Like a conspiracy theorist who if you doubt HIS particular conspiracy, merely points out OTHER conspiracies have existed and been proven. Yes. They have. So what? That does not lend ANY credence to HIS conspiracy.

Similarly if you want to change the subject to OTHER situations where dehumanization has been perfprmed historically then so be it. But that does not lend ANY credence to your claim it has happened HERE. If you want to argue it is happening HERE then let's do that. You have not substantiated that point yet however.

In order to argue that, say, an 8 week old fetus is being "dehumanized" you need to establish it is warranted to "humanize" it in the first place. This you have not done. And appeals to biological taxonomy are not going to carry that point for you.

beejee wrote: »

What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.

Yet no guilt is warranted, so no methodology to avoid guilt is required. Unless you can establish a moral or ethical reason why termination of a 12 week old fetus is something that requires guilt, then no method for avoiding guilt is required. This you have not done. Shouting the word "life" is not going to do it either.

beejee wrote: »

Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.

It is not as complicated as you pretend. When "life" begins is simply not a relevant factor in the moral or ethical issue related to it. That's all I'm saying.

beejee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I stand by the response that if calling it names is all you can do, and you can not rebut it with actual argument, then you have no actual point to make. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.

As I said we take somewhat arbitrary cut off points all the time in law and in policy. Out of necessity. If there was a better way we would likely use it, but no one has proposed one yet. Age of consent. Legality of Alcohol. Age of voting. Cut off points in abortion. The list goes on.

Thankfully rather than just flinging labels and insults however, these cut off points tend to be based on SOME level of rational argument, evidence, data and reasoning.



Your lack of ability to understand text does not mean the text is rambling. It was perfectly coherent. You just like demeaning labels to rebut things you can not rebut with reason.

The problem is no one here, least of all me, is suggesting "Biology and science are dictated by feelings". That is just your misrepresentation of what was said. Put away the straw.

No, in fact I preempted that non-reply by pointing out that it is important to understand the difference in the word "life" in seperate contexts. Because there is a difference between "life" as defined by biology and science.... and "life" as in the philosophical meaning. While the former has little to do with human feeling and subjectivity, the latter somewhat does. You ignore the very distinction I expressely recommended you note therefore.



Yet no one is taking issue with that "fact" at all. Least of all me. I certainly COULD take some issue with it if you want as it is not as clear cut as you pretend. But the point(s) I have made to you in the previous post have nothing to do with that, so there is no reason to take issue with it or argue it at all.



A big "so what?" has to be flung in the direction of that however. We "prevent life from continuing it's course" all the time. We cut down trees. Kill animals for meat. Use Anti Biotics and pesticides. Swat wasps and flies. And so on. We are n the business of "preventing life from continuing it's course" every day, in the billions.

So if one wants to argue that any particular life should not be discontinued, or that it is somehow morally or ethically wrong to do so, then you need a philosophical and ethical argument with more substance than merely screaming the word "life" at the problem.



Agreed. It has. But just because it occured THEN does not mean it is occuring HERE. You are deflecting in other words. Like a conspiracy theorist who if you doubt HIS particular conspiracy, merely points out OTHER conspiracies have existed and been proven. Yes. They have. So what? That does not lend ANY credence to HIS conspiracy.

Similarly if you want to change the subject to OTHER situations where dehumanization has been perfprmed historically then so be it. But that does not lend ANY credence to your claim it has happened HERE. If you want to argue it is happening HERE then let's do that. You have not substantiated that point yet however.

In order to argue that, say, an 8 week old fetus is being "dehumanized" you need to establish it is warranted to "humanize" it in the first place. This you have not done. And appeals to biological taxonomy are not going to carry that point for you.



Yet no guilt is warranted, so no methodology to avoid guilt is required. Unless you can establish a moral or ethical reason why termination of a 12 week old fetus is something that requires guilt, then no method for avoiding guilt is required. This you have not done. Shouting the word "life" is not going to do it either.



It is not as complicated as you pretend. When "life" begins is simply not a relevant factor in the moral or ethical issue related to it. That's all I'm saying.

Calling it names is all I can do?

I can't rebut anything?

You once again revert to social construct, again try to muddy the waters by bringing in philosophy and ethics, yet more social construct... All to counter a simple biological fact?

My explanation is concise, efficient and coherent.

Your position is destroyed. It was an untenable position to begin with, and it looks hokier the more paragraphs you add to it.

Life begins at fusion. Human interpretation designed for convenience won't alter the fact. 200 years from now, interpretation will change, multiple times over probably. Your philosophy will change, your ethics will change. Feelings change.

The fundamentals of biology will not change.

Lonesomerhodes

judeboy101 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/holles-st-review-termination-of-pregnancy-4639179-May2019/




interesting one. Docs obviously fecked up test but mother didn't want a dodgy baby

Least you called it what it is a baby.


Rather than the pro abortion folk, a clump of cells or a blob of this or that as if it could magically turn into a pheasant when it comes out!.

We all know it's a baby deep down.

nozzferrahhtoo

beejee wrote: »

Calling it names is all I can do? I can't rebut anything?

If you say so. My point is more than you HAVE NOT done so. Whether you actually CAN do so or not remains to be seen. All I have to go on is what you have done so far and as I said IF all you do is fling name calling at it THEN it would seem you can not rebut the points with reason.

beejee wrote: »

You once again revert to social construct, again try to muddy the waters by bringing in philosophy and ethics

You are distorting again. Abortion and the morality and ethics of abortion ARE ethical issues and social constructs already. It is not me making them so.

It is not that I am muddying anything therefore. Rather you are trying to conflate two disparate and distinct things into one, in order to distort them.

No one here is taking issue with the biological fact of "life". While your description of it is simplistic, it is irrelevant. It is when Life rather than life begins.... when it is Human rather than human.... that should be relevant to the discussion.

beejee wrote: »

All to counter a simple biological fact?

Who is countering a biological fact? I certainly have not. You are making stuff up now.

beejee wrote: »

My explanation is concise, efficient and coherent. Your position is destroyed. It was an untenable position to begin with, and it looks hokier the more paragraphs you add to it.

Yeah self praise is no praise. To rebut a position you have to actually rebut it, not just declare it rebutted or "destroyed".

My position is simple enough to describe. The fact something is "alive" is not in and of itself relevant to the question of whether it is moral or ethical to kill it or not.

If you want to suggest it is immoral or unethical to discontinue it's biological life, then you need to construct an argument to that effect. This you have yet to do. Pretending to have a crystal ball into the future will not do it for you. Make your argument based on data you have NOW, not data you imagine having in the future.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Least you called it what it is a baby. Rather than the pro abortion folk, a clump of cells or a blob of this or that as if it could magically turn into a pheasant when it comes out!

Aside from the fact I have never met a single person who identifies as "pro abortion", there is nothing wrong with calling it a "baby" if you wish. That does not mean the term is accurate. You can call it a flubbydubilyboob or a banana if you want. No one is stopping you.

The only point where it becomes an issue is if having given it a label, you infer something from that label that is not warranted. Which is alas what people who rush to the label "Baby" are all too often trying to do.

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

We all know it's a baby deep down.

Probably better if you do not presume to speak for people who are not you rather than make up lies about people like me who do not think what you think, believe what you believe, or "know" what you pretend they "know".

All I "know" in my "deep down" is that there is no attribute a 12 week old fetus has that provides a rational foundation for the things I think are morally or ethically relevant in this world. Nor has any argument been presented as to why they might. Least of all on this thread.

And no pointless or equivocation over labels is going to change that fact.

beejee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so. My point is more than you HAVE NOT done so. Whether you actually CAN do so or not remains to be seen. All I have to go on is what you have done so far and as I said IF all you do is fling name calling at it THEN it would seem you can not rebut the points with reason.



You are distorting again. Abortion and the morality and ethics of abortion ARE ethical issues and social constructs already. It is not me making them so.

It is not that I am muddying anything therefore. Rather you are trying to conflate two disparate and distinct things into one, in order to distort them.

No one here is taking issue with the biological fact of "life". While your description of it is simplistic, it is irrelevant. It is when Life rather than life begins.... when it is Human rather than human.... that should be relevant to the discussion.



Who is countering a biological fact? I certainly have not. You are making stuff up now.



Yeah self praise is no praise. To rebut a position you have to actually rebut it, not just declare it rebutted or "destroyed".

My position is simple enough to describe. The fact something is "alive" is not in and of itself relevant to the question of whether it is moral or ethical to kill it or not.

If you want to suggest it is immoral or unethical to discontinue it's biological life, then you need to construct an argument to that effect. This you have yet to do. Pretending to have a crystal ball into the future will not do it for you. Make your argument based on data you have NOW, not data you imagine having in the future.

Listen, when you're trotting out sentences like " it is when Life begins not life begins..."

You may as well be telling me the sun is green. It isn't, and no amount of wafflling bs is going to make me respect such a crazy position.

And yet I'm the one conflating two separate things? Come on now.

A rock is a rock except when it isn't. Pure shoite, and I have no problem reverting to base description because there is no reason to humour such claptrap. The very proposition is insulting.

Then again, if you spew enough of it, eventually it wears anyone down. Which, I strongly suspect, is the point.

seamus

I bet this time the abortion argument will be solved once and for all.

This thread will definitely result in lots of changed minds.

nthclare

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Least you called it what it is a baby.


Rather than the pro abortion folk, a clump of cells or a blob of this or that as if it could magically turn into a pheasant when it comes out!.

We all know it's a baby deep down.

I know that its a baby , you know that but due to the construct of today's society you're thick or ill-informed if you use your common sense.


They call it gaslighting, or the emperors new clothes syndrome.

RobertKK

These topics, from experience, inevitably leads to nowhere as no one on either side will ever agree and they end up a waste of time, with each side thinking they are right and the other side is wrong.

People like sex, and in some cases people don't like the outcome from having the sex.
In this case, we heard all about aborting the unborn who had medical issues during the repeal referendum, this is the result of it, the couple did not have to abort, even when the doctors gave the wrong information which I presume was unknowingly, they still made the final choice. I do not know if the doctors or nurses or people around them talked up that aborting was the solution.

That is all I am saying on the matter, this is what people voted for, the choice to end the life in the womb. "my body, my choice", I don't believe this couple was forced to have an abortion, it is not China we live in.

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

That is all I am saying on the matter, this is what people voted for, the choice to end the life in the womb. "my body, my choice", I don't believe this couple was forced to have an abortion, it is not China we live in.

Can't disagree with that. This single decision, even if it was done in error, does not invalidate the right of others to make the same decision for themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

beejee wrote: »

Listen, when you're trotting out sentences like " it is when Life begins not life begins..."

You may as well be telling me the sun is green.

Again the distinction is between "life" as in the biological sense and "Life" as in the philosophical sense of a Human Person and a Human Life. Nothing to do with you not knowing the colour of the sun. I capitalised one to help you tell the difference.

No one seems to be taking issue with the biological terms of life. Yet somehow you think they are. So you are arguing a straw man really. Nothing more.

The simple fact is we end "life" all the time on this planet. You can not deny that. So simply saying something is "life" is not enough to construct the argument you want to pretend you have.

So the question is do you actually have a point/argument or are you simply here to remind people of things they a) know already b) never disagreed with in the first place?

Quantum Erasure

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want to suggest it is immoral or unethical to discontinue it's biological life, then you need to construct an argument to that effect. This you have yet to do. Pretending to have a crystal ball into the future will not do it for you. Make your argument based on data you have NOW, not data you imagine having in the future.

I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see what a human fetus may develop into if left undisturbed...

(I'm not getting into a quote war here)

Titclamp

amcalester wrote: »

It wasn't that they didn't want a dodgy baby, they were told the child wouldn't survive.

Maybe read up on what Edwards Syndrome is.

Oh yeah sure I have great insight into Edwards syndrome....