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

Abortion

Options
1…1011121315

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Rayven199
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭Rayven199


    ireneeny!! wrote: »
    theres always one ignoramous who has to call abortion murder. narrow minded people. im sure society is very proud of you


    If thats their opinion than thats their opinion. As the above is yours, it doesnt make it any less valid.


  • Options
    #423
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    Ok sorry about the unreadability of this earlier, whats a tag?......

    Wibbs, here is the free link (hopefully): www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

    This is not a matter of goalposts changing btw, all of your reasons for claiming the embryo is potential human life and not a human being are scientifically false, the above article and any textbook on embryology shows why.

    Dr. Jermoe le Jeune, who won a Noble Prize for his work on Down's Syndrome, says this on the issue:

    'To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.'

    When we accept the science of the issue the ethics follows: human beings deserve human rights. But If you allow for abortion then you have emptied human rights of its meaning, it is a matter of science and logic. I appreciate that sometimes science tells us things we do not want to hear because it may upset our worldview, but we cannot be inconsistent just to appease our emotions.

    The term 'potential human being' has no scientific basis whatsoever, science does not investigate potentialities, only what actually physically exists. A skin cell is completely different from an embryo cos the embryo is the self-organising totality of a human being, whereas the skin cell is not.


  • Options
    #424
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Drift wrote: »
    Fundamentally I see abortion as the deliberate ending of a human life. I know to some people it doesn't count as a human life until birth and others don't until the baby would be viable outside the womb. Still other people view a difference between human life and sentient life or between human life and "personhood." In my case, however, I count it as a human life at implantation; which as far as I'm aware is where the current law defines the start of pregnancy. In fact although I struggle with how this relates to certain methods of contraception I think I consider it a human life from conception. I'm going to put that aside for the current discussion though because anything that is referred to as abortion occurs after implantation. So whereas some people view abortion as the ending of a process that will lead to the creation of a human being I see it as the ending of this human being's life. As such I would never vote to allow it to occur in this country because in my opinion it would be wrong even if the people doing it thought it was right. I would see it as me turning a blind eye to something occuring in my midst that was wrong. Some people think mugging old ladies for their handbags is ok but I don't so I wouldn't vote to allow it because even though it may not directly effect me I wouldn't want to think it was occuring and I didn't do what I could to stop it. In the case of abortion what I could do to "stop" it is vote against it and explain to others my reason for doing so. (I apologise for the weak nature of the mugging analogy. I'm not being facetious just trying to explain my way of thinking.)

    Fair enough, well done on expressing it in those terms.


    Drift wrote: »
    In my opinion the best way to reduce the number of Irish women availing of abortion is a comprehensive and detailed education programme starting at a young age combined with an extensive public information campaign involving open discussion of the issues. Sexual health, sexual relationships, contraception and abortion are still taboo subjects in Ireland and I think that needs to change. Without proper open discussion sex views tend to become distorted. It's protrayed in the media as fun-times for all with no consequences and in other circles as "something we don't talk about" because it's so vile. Sex is fun but it's also a serious business and people need to realise that by having sex regardless of precautions taken there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. There still seem to be a lot of people out there of all ages who operate on the head-in-the-sand, it will never happen to me principle. I would hope that a comprehensive programme of not just sexual but relationship education might at least make people think and consider ALL the consequences of sex and sexual encounters. I also don't for a second think that this education should be confined to schoolgoers. There's plenty of head-in-the-sand adults going around aswell.

    Secondly the systems in place to support single mothers and indeed parents in general could do with an overhall to ensure that parenting is not seen as an insurmountable or huge burden that prevents people from living their life. I think this needs to be combined with a re-evaluation of the adoption system in Ireland. I for one am not very knowlegable about this and I'm pretty sure many prospective mothers aren't either.

    I completely agree with the above.


    Drift wrote: »
    I am a realist though and I recognise that some women will still choose to have abortions. I wouldn't want to make it easier for them to chose to have them because I think it's a bad choice.

    I can't say I agree.
    Drift wrote: »
    Having said this I do believe that they should go into any decision they make with the fullest of impartial information available. There should also be an extensive system of councilling and support available both before and after an abortion. I see no reason why this cannot be provided in Ireland by the Irish government. It's abortion I'm opposed to, not helping people!

    This also agree with.


  • Options
    #425
    Drift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭Drift


    tomski wrote: »
    Wow Drift thats a huge post.

    LOL, yeah I surprised myself with the length of it. It's like when I start talking - it can be very difficult to shut me up!!


  • Options
    #426
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    tomski wrote: »
    Im not sure what definition of debate you are working from so ill just edit my earlier post and say that this goes to the heart of the abortion discussion. Again, I am interested in hearing responses to those earlier posts, so we can openly and without censorship discuss these issues further...

    So from what I gather you belive that in ensuring abortion remains illegal in Ireland the risk of women getting breast cancer,depression or commiting suicide will remain low. Yet again I ask,how comes that in our abortion free 'utopia' all these illnesses that abortion supposedly causes are already rampant compared to most other EU countries. Id like to see figures of soaring rates of suicde,breast cancer, and depression in countries where abortion is commonplace?But these statistics dont exist cos abortion causes none of these.
    We have one of the highest levels of suicide in the EU,with thousands of Irish women taking anti depressants,and Breast cancer is the second commonest form of cancer in Ireland.If there is a link between abortion and these illnesses, and thats a big IF, then they are secondary to to other more serious causes.

    I find it bemusing that people think they opppose abortion on grounds of health risk yet keep schtum over the very real medical risks that botched back street abortion inflict. Heres an example from just 2 months ago http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0523/1211461652675.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    Jules
    Registered Users Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Jules


    this is not an philosophical debate nor a debate about stem cells you can take that to humanities. This is a thread for people to talk plainly about abortion and the physical and emotional of it freely.

    keep it on topic.


  • Options
    #428
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    to ireeney, if murder is defined as 'the deliberate killing of an innocent human being' and abortion is defined as 'the deliberate killing of a foetus/unborn baby', and if we accept the scientific fact that a foetus/unborn baby is a human being... what is wrong with calling abortion murder?

    I appreciate that such a labelling is highly emotive and that it comes down to freedom of speech and censorship--but if its a logically consistent appellation/nomenclature maybe its a little arbitrary to censor it? If such a labelling is obviosly wrong then it should be easily dismissed. If its correct then maybe censorship avoided. One of my friends told me that there have been discussions on here about drinking vodka to perform an abortion--i dont think that was censored as far as I know.


  • Options
    #429
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    There is no freedom of speech on this privately owned website and the mods have already ruled on what is not acceptable in terms certain words being used.

    If you want to start a discussion on that I suggest you try the feedback forum.
    You will find it here.


  • Options
    #430
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    To Jules, aborion is a philsophical issue, this is how the thread began...

    'while I think abortion is fundamentaly wrong I think If there was a referendum on it tommorow I would probably vote to legalise abortion beacuse I would rather women have their abortions here then travelling overseas. What are the boardies thoughts?'

    nothing I or anyone else has said goes outside of this.

    To Panda-- abortion is not the only influence on suicide rates so the best way to study the issue would be to do what Prof. Ferguson and the Finnish STAKES report did and explicitly examine abortion, pregnancy and suicide. Both studies found a very strong link, recognised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London. You can choose to ignore hard evidence if you wish, and you can choose to speculate on various theories, but do not be surprised if you only listen to what you want to hear.

    You claim that pro-lifers do not care about women's health: Ireland is the safest place in the world to give birth in according to UN statistics. Why does one of the largest pro-choice groups in the world, 'women on waves', sell the RU 486 pill over the internet when it has caused the death of 18 women? Why does it claim that RU 486 pill is safe to take 'as long as you live near a hospital'? Why do the IFPA continue to ignore the above studies?


  • Options
    #431
    allabouteve58
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭allabouteve58


    This is all very interesting....

    What is very suprising about this is that the people posting are people who seem to have never had to deal with unplanned pregnancy or the possiblity of abortion....

    It is all well and good to give your advice and in some cases ram it down people throats but I think that until one finds themselves in this awful situation you will NEVER know what the feelings/decisions are like.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Isn't the answer that even knowing full well that they are ending the life of the child the feotus will develop into being and that they face the risks of surgery or of the abortion pill and the emotional and mental distress after they have the abortion women still choose to have an abortion rather then continue with the pregnancy.

    They do, they have always done and will continue to do so and have and will resort to worse methods such as the article panda100 linked to when a safer legal option is not advialible to them.


  • Options
    #433
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    tomski,

    I hate to break it to you but the link you provided does nothing to scientifically prove when a "human being" comes into existence.

    Sure, it uses the term "human being" a lot, and a bit of maths ( 23+23 =46=human being ) but that is about it.

    I was expecting a decent study on mapping adult and cognitive brain patterns in a human foetus to those of an adult and finding a term where the corrosponding information would imply active thought has occured.

    But that was just me.

    I would almost say that fact 13 provided on the link you have shown states very clearly that there is, in effect, no brain and without a brain how can you have a human?

    Like i said, i see no fact, i see the dismissal of all other arguments in favour of a perspective taken on science that suits the goals of those who host the information.

    However, the simple fact is that science has complete failed to answer the questions that i need answered on that link.

    Sure, 23 chromosomes from a man, plus 23 from a woman = human tissues, human DNA, but i just cannot buy that it automatically equals a human being.

    Further research is required i think.


  • Options
    #434
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    According to Eurostat Ireland has quite a low female suicide rate Panda.

    allabouteve--everyone is entitled to discuss the issue, by your reasoning we cannot decide on what is right or wrong or pass laws on anything cos we will never know how we might feel in a given situation. There is a difference between saying something is wrong, ie abortion, and condemning someone for it. Sometimes quitude is tyranny, people do not have the courage to stand up for vulnerable human beings due to being told they cannot know what is right in a given situation. I have never been to Iraq nor have I ever held an ak-47 but I can still give reasons why war is wrong. Human rights either apply to all human being or none, SilentnoMore are a group of women who had abortions and now think what they did is wrong. No one is condemning them for what they did while pregnant, but it doesnt follow that we cannot say an injustice occurs with every abortion.

    Theadydal-- (sorry about the spelling, its a tough name to remember)-- your view that women will always have abortions, therefore abortions are ok is irresponsible. The evidence is there that abortion hurts women as well as babies, surely a society has a duty to care for all its citizens especially when it come to health. People will always drive over the speed limit, should we legalise speeding? You seems to have a very naive and negative view of freedom, ie the wish to be free from every possible constraint, every possible duty. Human Rights are built upon a positive view of freedom, ie free to respect fellow human beings and to try and do what id good. The negative view of freedom ends up hurting even its adherents.


  • Options
    #435
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    ireneeny!! wrote: »
    theres always one ignoramous who has to call abortion murder. narrow minded people. im sure society is very proud of you

    there's always another one calling people narrow minded when they don't agree with their point of view


  • Options
    #436
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    To Dragan, THANK YOU!!

    You are perfectly wrong!! Its an easy and classic mistake to make but being a human is not the same as having a brain with certain brain waves because even disabled people with much 'less' brain waves or even just brain stems are human beings!! You have confused a biological issue with a philosophical issue, biologically a human being is an individual entity with human DNA (as the article consistently affirms). Philosophy too must accpet science on this issue, but it can discuss what a person is (many philosophers think that an embryo is a person too: an individual substance of a rational nature).

    My point is that all human beings deserve human rights (nb-- there is no such thing as 'person rights' in international law). In the 60's when women were fighting for civil rights a feminist was asked was she fighting for rights based on the fact that she has consciousness. She resonded 'I am not looking for consciousness rights, I am looking for human rights'.

    In short, if you equate a human being with consciousness you are making a giant category error and could end up discriminating against mentally handicapped human beings.


  • Options
    #437
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    tomski wrote: »
    Theadydal-- (sorry about the spelling, its a tough name to remember)-- your view that women will always have abortions, therefore abortions are ok is irresponsible. The evidence is there that abortion hurts women as well as babies, surely a society has a duty to care for all its citizens especially when it come to health. People will always drive over the speed limit, should we legalise speeding? You seems to have a very naive and negative view of freedom, ie the wish to be free from every possible constraint, every possible duty. Human Rights are built upon a positive view of freedom, ie free to respect fellow human beings and to try and do what id good. The negative view of freedom ends up hurting even its adherents.

    I do think that we should reduce the possibility of a woman opting for an abortion as much as possible, I have stated this several times already in this thread and to how I think that is achievable.

    I am a realist think ignoring what is going on and not tackling it is irresponsible and is hurting women.

    Again to a certain point I don't think a fetus is a baby and there for not a citizen.

    As for my take on personal freedom, if I could make contraception mandatory I would and those wishing to be parents would have to to a course and pay a nominal to be released from the contraception.


  • Options
    #438
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    tomski wrote: »
    To Dragan, THANK YOU!!

    You are perfectly wrong!! Its an easy and classic mistake to make but being a human is not the same as having a brain with certain brain waves because even disabled people with much 'less' brain waves or even just brain stems are human beings!! You have confused a biological issue with a philosophical issue, biologically a human being is an individual entity with human DNA (as the article consistently affirms). Philosophy too must accpet science on this issue, but it can discuss what a person is (many philosophers think that an embryo is a person too: an individual substance of a rational nature).

    My point is that all human beings deserve human rights (nb-- there is no such thing as 'person rights' in international law). In the 60's when women were fighting for civil rights a feminist was asked was she fighting for rights based on the fact that she has consciousness. She resonded 'I am not looking for consciousness rights, I am looking for human rights'.

    In short, if you equate a human being with consciousness you are making a giant category error and could end up discriminating against mentally handicapped human beings.

    Really? Because that is not what i am saying at all, nor was it what that study was saying. I told you what i was expecting, that is it.

    I then pointed out that using the term "human being" does not make it so.

    Finally i pointed out that a newly formed dna sample does not unequivocally equal a human being.

    I see you ignored those points in favour of misinterpreting what i had said.

    I assume yourself and Evie are friends? As in, you told her of the study, then she said it here, then i questioned it and then you showed up?


  • Options
    #439
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    I do think that we should reduce the possibility of a woman opting for an abortion as much as possible, I have stated this several times already in this thread and to how I think that is achievable.

    I am a realist think ignoring what is going on and not tackling it is irresponsible and is hurting women.

    Again to a certain point I don't think a fetus is a baby and there for not a citizen.

    Ok Thaedydal. I hear what your typing. Firstly, my point is that all human beings deserve human rights. Foetus and Baby are just different terms for a human being at different stages of his/her life, like teenager and pensioner. The best way to deny the humanity of someone is too call them the equivalent of unhuman. For instance women only became persons in Canadian law in the late 19th century, and black people even later in America. Recently I saw 2 articles in the Irish Times; in one an operation was carried out to save the life of preborn twins--in it they were referred to as unborn babies. A week later an article stated that abortion terminates the life of a foetus. So which is it? Do we only give rights to human beings if we want to or feel like it?

    Secondly, Im not sure why you equate tackling the issue with legalising abortion. Tackling the issue can be to respect the right to life of both mother and child, all the while improving adoption services in a country with so many infertile couples. There is serious and undeniable evidence that abortion hurts women, we cannot ignore these findings either. Tackling the issue should consist of in educating people of these dangers and also of the humanity of the unborn child. You cannot read a maternity magazine and but conclude that what is good for mother is good for baby, and vice versa. Pitting mother against baby is an insult to both and has serious consequences for both.


  • Options
    #440
    tomski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭tomski


    Dragan wrote: »
    Really? Because that is not what i am saying at all, nor was it what that study was saying. I told you what i was expecting, that is it.

    I then pointed out that using the term "human being" does not make it so.

    Finally i pointed out that a newly formed dna sample does not unequivocally equal a human being.

    I see you ignored those points in favour of misinterpreting what i had said.

    I assume yourself and Evie are friends? As in, you told her of the study, then she said it here, then i questioned it and then you showed up?


    Dragan,

    'Finally i pointed out that a newly formed dna sample does not unequivocally equal a human being',

    according to science an individual, self-organising entity with human DNA is a human being. This is precisely the point the article was making and precisely the point every textbook on embryology makes. This is basic science, it is unequivocal: Im not quite sure why you are reacting so adversley to it. If this doesnt meet your expectations maybe it is your expectations that need modifying and not the science. I think what you are having trouble with is the relation of consciousness to pesonhood, but that is a deifferent issue from the biological question of what is a human being. Ill restate my point: all human beings should have basic human rights.

    As for Evie, we do lunch sometimes. We own a yacht together of the southern coast of France and host annual scrabble tournaments on it. She is sweet, im eclectic--we are a dream together.


  • Options
    #441
    Piste
    Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    The debate as to whether life begins at conception or birth is a very interesting one.


    I believe that life begins at conception, I don't think it's wrong to end that life though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Jules
    Registered Users Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Jules


    panda100 wrote: »
    Have you ever had an abortion? Do you know anyone who has?
    If you became pregnant tommorow would abortion be an option for you?

    Around 6000 Irish women travel to the UK each year to get an abortion,however its not something that women really talk about or discuss. I think Irish society and in particularly the goverment have their heads in the sand when It comes to this issue.


    Me,I would consider myself pro-life. I think women are forced into having abortions mainly for economic reasons. However,I think its wrong that women have to travel overseas in a vunerable state and fork out substantial amounts of cash for a procedure that cant be pleasant. Irish women at the moment are not getting the medical or psyhcological aftercare they need. So while I think abortion is fundamentaly wrong I think If there was a referendum on it tommorow I would probably vote to legalise abortion beacuse I would rather women have their abortions here then travelling overseas. What are the boardies thoughts?


    Ot quote the OP asking the questions have you ever had, do you know anyone who, how would you feel.

    It was not intended to be a philosophical debate and if it continues to go that track i will close and split the thread and send part to humanities and leave the relavent pages here. And do not argue with a mod on thread if you have issue with something i have said pm me or take it to the help desk.

    Thank you


  • Options
    #443
    HammerHeadGym
    Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭HammerHeadGym


    tomski wrote: »
    ...here is the free link ...

    Wow, a scientific journal about when life begins written for and funded by a pro life orginisation. Impartial scientific observation here we come.

    Currently we do not have the technology to accurately determine the beginning of life and anyone who claims to is a liar.


  • Options
    #444
    Jules
    Registered Users Posts: 6,756 ✭✭✭Jules


    HammerHeadGym wrote: »
    Wow, a scientific journal about when life begins written for and funded by a pro life orginisation. Impartial scientific observation here we come.

    Currently we do not have the technology to accurately determine the beginning of life and anyone who claims to is a liar.

    Excellent point but can we get back to the roots of the thread please. I will not post again.


  • Options
    #445
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    HammerHeadGym wrote: »
    Currently we do not have the technology to accurately determine the beginning of life and anyone who claims to is a liar.
    Yes we do.
    "Life" nevers begins. Both the sperm and the egg are alive before they merge. Every one of us is part of an unbroken chain of life stratching back across countless millenia.

    This is part of the problem of abortion - no definition of life is satisfactory.
    If we choose "alive", then it's from conception.
    If we choose "conscious","self-aware" etc, then we are faced with the fact that babies up to seven months after birth don't technically meet that standard, and so we've justified infanticide (whoops:eek: :D)

    People need to realise that there is no magic line, where we can say "thats it, right there, see it, right there, no, little to the left, THERE!".

    Personally, I think that once the foetus can healthily survive outside the body, it becomes a damn nasty thing to do.


    EDIT: Just remembered that Jules is a mod of this place. Sorry Jules.


  • Options
    #446
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The_Minister wrote: »
    Personally, I think that once the foetus can healthily survive outside the body, it becomes a damn nasty thing to do.

    +1


  • Options
    #447
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,107 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    tomski wrote: »
    Wibbs, here is the free link (hopefully): www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
    Cheers.
    This is not a matter of goalposts changing btw, all of your reasons for claiming the embryo is potential human life and not a human being are scientifically false, the above article and any textbook on embryology shows why.

    Jermoe le Jeune, who won a Noble Prize for his work on Down's Syndrome, says this on the issue:
    'To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.
    With respect to Monsieur Le Jeune that's splitting hairs to the point of well crap really. Essentially a collection of cells is only a human being (or any other creature) when it can survive outside the womb, or are you claiming that a one hour fertilised egg is equal in "humanity" to a 20 year old man or woman? If so that's an incredibly naive, overly dramatic and romantic notion. We're not talking divine spark here, or then again maybe we are. The DNA that exists immediately after fertilisation by that logic is also a human being. Would you agree? After all it contains all the information required to grow a human. If you don't agree, because it's not a complete cell, then you must also agree that it is only a human being by it's potential to become one in the context. You could extend that argument to the cell itself. It is a "human being" but not a fully realised one without the context of growth. It has potential to be a baby a toddler an adolescent an adult etc. So we're back to square one about when Human life starts. When humanity starts. There is no real debate where fertilisation starts.
    When we accept the science of the issue the ethics follows: human beings deserve human rights. But If you allow for abortion then you have emptied human rights of its meaning, it is a matter of science and logic. I appreciate that sometimes science tells us things we do not want to hear because it may upset our worldview, but we cannot be inconsistent just to appease our emotions
    If I put a gun to your head and say right you can kill a single fertilised egg in a dish or you can put a bullet through an 8 year old. Which one would you choose to kill? If you say the egg then right away you're putting a value judgement on one human being(in your view) over another.
    The term 'potential human being' has no scientific basis whatsoever, science does not investigate potentialities, only what actually physically exists.
    Actually science looks at potentialities too. All the time in fact. A super massive start that falls in on itself has the potential to be a black hole, doesn't mean every supermassive star will though. Weather science is full of potentialities. Physics is another one. Even medicine. You could argue all statistics and the science delivered from same are potentialities. If the term potential human being has no basis in actuality, then what would you call a sperm cell 2 mm away from an unfertilised egg?
    A skin cell is completely different from an embryo cos the embryo is the self-organising totality of a human being, whereas the skin cell is not.
    The DNA is the self organising totality in the context of the embryonic cell. That same DNA can be found in many of our cells, particularly stem cells, where it could be tricked into becoming an adult. So an adult stem cell has that same totality or if you will potential. Oh look there's that word again. Let's look at the umbilical cord. It has stem cells. Much better ones than adult. Are they Human beings?
    biologically a human being is an individual entity with human DNA (as the article consistently affirms)
    OK so the single fertilised cell is a human being by that definition? It has all the instructions to make a recognisable human? So does the umbilical stem cell. Same DNA, smae basic cell makeup and a with a twist from the salt cellar of science could and would become a recognisable human. Everyday millions of such cells are thrown away.

    No matter which way you cut this argument, we are still taking about potential, not actuality. We're still talking about shades of grey not black and white, which after all is what this debate in the end reduces itself too. Your shade of grey is different to someone elses. Society must and should try to work out what shade of grey brings the most benefit and the least cost to that society and the humanity of that society.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #448
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,283 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

    OK, and that absolutely concludes the scientific, ethical, theological and moral parts of the discussion. Now if we could kindly get back on topic before we are forced to go into a modly huddle and discuss locking this thread.

    If anyone wishes to continue debating the issue in this manner, I'm sure the Humanities Forum would be only too delighted to see a bit of extra traffic.

    Any posts that continue to argue off-topic points such as when life begins, what science has to say on the subject or whether abortion is morally right or wrong will be deleted on sight. Don't say you haven't been warned.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Zaph


  • Options
    #449
    Winters
    Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq4NZEtNTAo


  • Options
    #450
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,107 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Point taken Zaph, though this subject head and shoulders above others invites this or at least doesn't get very far without the moral/scientific/blah blah conundrum. Even Panda100's very first post touched on it. Plus I do have a marked tendency to rabbit on and on and on and ........ It would test the patience of a saint in fairness......:D

    On a welcome lighter and brighter note that song is one of my faves of all time. Genius.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    MJOR
    Registered Users Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭MJOR


    I am pro choice. I have never had one, but if the circumstance presented itself and I felt vunerable enough then it wouldn't cross my mind not to. As it stands where I am at now, house, finacially secure enough and a great future husband then I would have the baby.

    The question then is what if you knew your child was going to be severely disabled and have little or no quality of life, what's your choice then?


    I have several friends that have had them and only one that has been traumatised by the incident.

    I think the damage caused by giving birth and raising a child that you don't want or love is a lot worse.

    It's worth it to consider the mental state of someone having to travel to England or Amsterdam often alone and unable to cope.

    It should be made available in this country immediately.


Advertisement