Keep abortion out of Ireland

Medicine333 wrote: »

No, because she didn't actively go out and kill her child. There is a big difference between an egg/sperm and a zygote. One is an egg/sperm,one is a zygote.

I thought you would have learned that in Junior Cert. science?

I know quite well the difference. I am trying to deal with your argument that the potential for human life requires the same protections as actual human persons.
If she actively prevents the sperm and egg from developing into a zygote is that murder? If she actively prevents the zygote from developing into a zygote +1 day is that murder? If you think that it isn't in the first case and is in a latter, due to the potential for human life, then the potential for human life reasoning is flawed.

Medicine333 wrote: »

Once conception takes place, a life is formed. Your reasoning is below par. We are talking about the formation of the zygote. I view that as a human life, and scientists have identified it as an organism-living and actively dividing.

Pro-Abortionists have a very simplified view of the matter, and choose to ignore important details to suit their own opinion. It makes me feel physically ill to think of a child aborted at 22 weeks, when children have survived when born before that. At 4 weeks, all major organs have been formed and the child has a nervous system.

Do a bit of research into abortion, and the actual tearing of the baby away from the mother's uterus. There are many methods of termination, that is one commonly practised in the US. A doctor removes the baby with an elongated forceps. I have seen it done.

You view a zygote as human life and so do I. The difference is that I do not consider a zygote to be a human person with the same ethical standing as those human persons with brains.
You sought to justify your belief that a human zygote deserves to be treated as a human person by appealing to the argument that it has the potential to develop into a human person. The same logic can be used to protect separate sperm and eggs as they also can develop into a human person. And before you deflect again, yes I am perfectly aware that a zygote is a very early stage, live, human DNA capable of becoming a human person, and likewise sperm and eggs are separate, live, human DNA capable of becoming a human person.

Medicine333 wrote: »

We're talking about the deliberate termination of a life-Abortion.

what is the difference between the prevention of life and the termination of life ?

Zombrex wrote: »

That depends on whether they still are maintaining their neural connections and whether they still have the ability to produce consciousness.

People in comas don't have the ability to produce consciousness, if they did they wouldn't be in a coma.

An embryo has no person to sustain, the "person" does not exist yet, where as in the case of the coma patient the person does exist and if they can do all the above, continues to exist.

Saying when a person does and doesn't exist is opinion, it's simply convenient that your opinion matches your stance on abortion,
I find most of the pro-abortion arguments about when life begins to be rationalising, I don't see why nobody says yes we are killing a human, a person, an individual, however at the moment it has no memories or consciousness and nobody wants to raise it so we will terminate it and nothing of value has been lost. Accept it as morally wrong but necessary.

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't true, people wake up from coma's all the time. Being a coma is not the same as being brain dead.

people wake up from gestation all the time too, it takes a few months but it is far more likely to occur than it will for a person in a long time coma

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not a question of convenience, my stance on abortion is based on my opinion of what is or isn't a person.

that's pretty much the definition of convenience

Zombrex wrote: »

The ironic thing is that most people (including anti-abortion proponents) when they think about it, tend to agree with this position of what is or isn't a person (ie that a person is the individual consciousness contained in the bodies brain), yet take a contradictory position when it comes to abortion. I personally find this rather amusing, particularly when the person doesn't realize they are doing it.

and again someone in a coma is no more conscious than an embryo,

That is what they say, except since it doesn't have memories or consciousness or personhood, it isn't a "person", it is just a bunch of cells.

again someone in a coma has no memories, ask someone in a coma what is their fondest memory and then ask an embryo and tell me the difference, it is possible that they may have the ability to have memories in the future just as an embryo could

The fact that it is human means very little. Both the sperm and the egg cells are human, but few cry over their loss.

thats nonsense, i'm pretty sure you realise a sperm or an egg alone could never gain consciousness

Since no person is being destroyed

Please state 'in my opinion' when making such claims as to negate the implication of fact.

, and since personhood is what we value (not cells or DNA) it is not morally wrong.

so since personhood is what we value and not cells or DNA it's not morally wrong for me to abort your baby or your wifes baby, slip a pill in a drink, of course early enough that it would cause no harm to you or her, i would simply be denying something you or her wanted, a bit like not giving you or her a job you wanted or a pair of shoes you wanted to buy.

In my experience a lot of anti-abortion proponents can tell you that abortion is wrong but have a very hard time explaining why.

In answer to that I would simply say in order for you to hold the opinion that abortion is cool you had to have not been aborted, you have safely passed through that precarious time , been born and now safe and alive condemn others in that situation to death.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Firstly, the collection of cells in Zombrex's wife's body are not yours to give so it is nothing like you being a shoe salesman and refusing to serve a customer.

The point was aborting her baby while causing no harm to her was not morally wrong, no harm was caused, I was merely denying her a worthless object such as a shoe.

Secondly, if you can suggest that it is not morally wrong to 'slip a pill in a drink' in order to cause a miscarriage then you must also believe that it is not morally wrong to steal.

Don't see how you come up with that, I gain nothing from aborting , stealing implies taking something of value from someone in order to gain financially myself and a) an embryo is worthless as has been stated and b) i gain nothing

If someone starts to build a house and then you come along and destroy their work then that is not okay.

As has been stated again and again an embro is a worthless collection of cells, there is a difference between it and a house, a comparison would be me knocking down your house to plucking a hair from your head, one would result in severe repercussions and the other no repercussions because a few cells have no value unlike a house

Do you see the difference?

Do you see the difference, either an embryo is worthless or it isn't , you can't have it both ways

we on the pro-choice side of the debate salute you; it is as if you are on our side considering the damage you are doing to your own cause.

Thank you.

I am on your side as I have said previously in thread, I don't care how many embryos are aborted, I just like to be honest about it and say it's a necessary evil.

Sin City wrote: »

Or from the first few months of life

or even from their past lives

Wh1stler wrote: »

Or from when they were kidnapped by aliens.

or in the womb in a past life and kidnapped by aliens

Keylem wrote: »

Done it several times!

Great! and I'm going to campaign for pregnancy testing kits to be sold only by registered agencies. It would work like this: You would go to these agencies to take a test. If the test proves positive - you surrender your passport until the birth, or until you can prove that you have miscarried. What do you think?

After all, we are a Catholic country.......

Zombrex wrote: »

People don't "wake up" from gestation, any more than they wake up from being a sperm. The body grows a brain and then starts using it. Before than happens there isn't a person to wake up.

On a one to one basis i'll show you hundreds of people happily living their lives after waking from gestation for every single long term coma patient who revived, and again you state your opinion as to brain development equaling personhood, thats an unquantifiable, and could be used as an excuse to teminate far more than just embryos, lets go for 8 month pregnancies or even post natal termination, or perhaps mentally retarded children because if personhood is linked to brain development anything is on the table,

The common analogy is the difference between turning your computer back on (to retrieve all your data), and buying a completely new PC with nothing on it yet. If the data is what is valuable how valuable is the new PC with no data. Not very. How valuable is the PC full of data? Very valuable.

Yes, thats a very common analogy, all the time i hear the value of human life being compared to pc parts, like when my gran was dieing and they told my mother it would cost an arm and a leg to keep her alive or she could buy a new one at compustore for a lot less, good point well made.

No it isn't, it has little if anything to do with convenience. Are you sure you don't mean "arbitrary" instead?

you have an opinion and all the 'facts' you state just happen to agree with your opinion, yes thats convenience.

And again that is not true. Their brain is ticking away, sustaining itself and its precious neural networks that contain the person's personality, consciousness and memories.
An embryo has no brain, and thus cannot have any of these things.

Sustaining itself ? as in feeding itself, keeping itself warm in a cosy bed ? cleaning up the urine and feces its body produces ? paying for it's hospital bills ? working a few hours a day perhaps ?

How about no, it isn't sustaining itself, it is infact a far sight harder to sustain than an embryo and it is no more conscious and has no more personality than an embryo, again if i put an embryo behind one screen and a coma patient behind another no matter how long you were given you couldn't tell which was which

You do not lose all your memories by being in a coma, I've no idea where you got that idea from.

If it isn't retrievable it isn't a memory

A zygote alone could never gain consciousness. Stick a zygote in a dish and leave it out in a lab and see what happens (hint: nothing)

a coma patient alone could never gain consciosness, stick a coma patient in a field and leave it and see what happens (hint nothing)
lol yea it works both ways

This is assuming you agree with the concept of bodily privacy?

Yes I do and thats why i think abortion is wrong, I know you don't agree with bodily privacy, if you do please state the exact and I mean exact time as to when you gain the privilege of bodily privacy and what happens at that point in time that confers the right upon you. That is a question you can never answer because you don't know, there is no answer to that unless you start talking about Gods breathing a soul into a baby when the cord is cut or some other nonsense like that.

I can't distinguish between young earth creationists who try to scientifically prove the flood and those who try to use science to 'prove' unborns are not people.

I'll tell you why you value coma patients more than embryos, because you are a sentimentalist, you can imagine little maggie in her pigtails crying beside momies bed hoping, dare i say praying that she wakes up, i can see the tears in your eyes now thinking about it. You cry over dead puppies while munching on a beefburger.

Bottom line is if nobodies cares it's worth nothing, if a little girl will cry over it we muct use all of our resources and medical expertise to save it, god forbid a little girl crying, I can feel a lump in my throat now just typing.

I just realised...

Pro-lifers, 9/11 conspiracy heads, and those people who think jetstreams are poisoning us all....

i view them all the same....

Wh1stler wrote: »

FYP.

fair point.