abortion

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Beruthiel
which flushes out the possible fertilized egg

the chances are that it might not be fertilized,,, and to be honest, if ur havin unprotected sex around the most fertil part of the month then that again falls under irresponsabilty..

this doesn't even apply to me as my gf has never taken the morning after pill nor will we have any need to take it ever

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by newband
the chances are that it might not be fertilized,,, and to be honest, if ur havin unprotected (no pill or condom) sex around the most fertil part of the month then that again falls under irresponsabilty.. and if u are on the pill then most likely the doc wouldn't give ya the morning pill anyways..

this doesn't even apply to me as my gf has never taken the morning after pill nor will we have any need to take it ever

my bad, meant to press edit instead of quote,,oops

Beruthiel

Originally posted by newband
the chances are that it might not be fertilized,,, and to be honest, if ur havin unprotected sex around the most fertil part of the month then that again falls under irresponsabilty..

yes, that's all well and good
however, I’d be interested in knowing your view on the morning after pill,
do you condone it knowing there is a chance it kills a fertilized egg?

Lemming

Originally posted by newband

this doesn't even apply to me

Of course "it" doesn't. You're a bloke.

as my gf has never taken the morning after pill nor will we have any need to take it ever

"Ever" is a long time .......

oh, and what's with this "we" business again? See my above point on you being a bloke. Welcome to the world of reality.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Beruthiel
yes, that's all well and good
however, I’d be interested in knowing your view on the morning after pill,
do you condone it knowing there is a chance it kills a fertilized egg?

to be honest i never gave it much thought before, but thinkin of it now, i would be against it,,,, the way i see it, people need to take respnsability, and if u do have sex with no protection wot so ever then u should take responsabilty,,, it would be a lot easier if there was a way to determine if the egg is fertilized or not before u take it... but other than that, the morning after pill is known as a chemical abortion..

as i said before, me and my gf would have no need to take it, as we use both condoms and the pill, so if a condom were to break we'd rely on the pill,,, and besides, if a woman was on the pill and wanted to take the mornin after pill the doc probably wouldn't give it to her because of the fact that she is on the pill already and wouldn't need it etc etc,,, imo.. lets not start a WHOLE other argument just because i have said this cos i know a lot of people dissaggree with me

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
Of course "it" doesn't. You're a bloke.

i meant the argument itself doesn't apply to me personaly as an argumentor because my gf wouldn't have to take it

Originally posted by Lemming
"Ever" is a long time .......

oh, and what's with this "we" business again? See my above point on you being a bloke. Welcome to the world of reality.

u see my above point and stop postin pointless comments,, if my gf and i BOTH see our personnal relationship as a TWO way thing concerning ALL matters including pregnancy then who the hell are u to argue with it

Beruthiel

Originally posted by newband
as i said before, me and my gf would have no need to take it, as we use both condoms and the pill, so if a condom were to break we'd rely on the pill

this is not about you and your girlfriend, it's about everybody and their rights

as you are probably aware, if your g/f was on the pill and she had been ill, the effectiveness of the pill goes down with the possibility of her getting pregnant, and your condom burst, then what?
This can happen whither you are responsible or not and you are unfair to say otherwise

uberwolf

Originally posted by Beruthiel
this is not about you and your girlfriend, it's about everybody and their rights

as you are probably aware, if your g/f was on the pill and she had been ill, the effectiveness of the pill goes down with the possibility of her getting pregnant, and your condom burst, then what?
This can happen whither you are responsible or not and you are unfair to say otherwise

I would imagine that would be covered under his taking responsibility maxim...

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
i meant the argument itself doesn't apply to me personaly as an argumentor because my gf wouldn't have to take it

Someone once made a comment, and I'm going to say something similar again. Your g/f is just an all-purpose-crutch to all of your arguments isn't she? Even though she's not here......

Necessity makes for strange bedfellows newband. You'd do wise to keep that little phrase in mind through life.

u see my above point and stop postin pointless comments,,

This game seems familiar. I wonder why ...... :rolleyes:

if my gf and i BOTH see our personnal relationship as a TWO way thing concerning ALL matters including pregnancy then who the hell are u to argue with it

Indeed, relationships are two way things. Every relationship (of any nature) is a two way thing - even if you don't think it. "Her" having to take x, y, or z does not include "You" unless you are either symbiotically joined with her or are also taking said same x, y, or z.

Do you consider "we" to be on the pill too?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Beruthiel
as you are probably aware, if your g/f was on the pill and she had been ill, the effectiveness of the pill goes down with the possibility of her getting pregnant, and your condom burst, then what?
This can happen whither you are responsible or not and you are unfair to say otherwise

ur probably not gonna even believe me sayin this,, but, we do know this and only a couple of weeks ago she did get ill, and we are really paranoid about gettin pregnant so we didn't have sex for a couple of weeks until after her period to be safe... there are also other things one can do other than penetrative sex

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
Someone once made a comment, and I'm going to say something similar again. Your g/f is just an all-purpose-crutch to all of your arguments isn't she? Even though she's not here......

Necessity makes for strange bedfellows newband. You'd do wise to keep that little phrase in mind through life.

Indeed, relationships are two way things. Every relationship (of any nature) is a two way thing - even if you don't think it. "Her" having to take x, y, or z does not include "You" unless you are either symbiotically joined with her or are also taking said same x, y, or z.

Do you consider "we" to be on the pill too?

and again you take everythin i say into litteral context,, u totally misunderstand wot i am saying just so you can continue a pointless argument which i shall just ignore from now on,

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
and again you take everythin i say into litteral context

You really should be more careful about what you write and how you say it. Text does not convey emotion or facial expression/body language.

THINK next time you post.

u totally misunderstand wot i am saying just so you can continue a pointless argument which i shall just ignore from now on,

Heh. just to be pedantic and let you know how it feels newband I'm going to point out that I did not "misunderstand" just to make a pointless argument. I understood perfectly well. I CHOOSE to make the posts I made. How can I possibly "misunderstand" something in order to make another point? That's just not logical. In order to do that I would have to be deliberate which means I would have to distinguish between what it was and what I decided to do.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Beruthiel

as you are probably aware, if your g/f was on the pill and she had been ill, the effectiveness of the pill goes down with the possibility of her getting pregnant, and your condom burst, then what?
This can happen whither you are responsible or not and you are unfair to say otherwise

I think it's safe to assume Beruthiel, from the tone of newbands posts that if such a scenario were to occur that he and his gf would keep their baby

On a side note, it's nice to see newband and lemming have made up

Getting back on topic, this whole abortion issue, is a matter of personal choice.
Where it is concerned, I have my view and live by that, but I wouldn't presume to take away anyones choice to kill their own unborn child.
That is a matter for their own conscience.
I'd feel it is wrong for them to do so, and would feel bad to be honest about it, but c'est la vie.

I only introduced the concept of God and separately the concept of fairness ( ie that I think it unfair to choose which entity lives and which dies ) to broaden out the discussion and to see where everybodies particular positions stood in relation to those aspects.

secret_squirrel

Rockclimber has a good point..in an effort to open another can of worms I'd be interested in hearing - regardless of their own personal view of abortion...how many people think it is ok for those views to be imposed on those who dont share them?

For example... Im pro-choice simply because at the end of the day I wouldnt dream of enforcing my opinions about abortion on anyone else. To my way of thinking being pro-choice in the wider sense, however I thinks its fair to say, most pro-lifers would be not only anti-abortion in their own personal circumstances...but are quite happy to impose their personal views onto other peoples circumstances.

For me Abortion is just far too complex an issue to do this.

embee

After speaking to a friend who is currently studying Law and writing her thesis on laws surrounding abortion in Ireland versus the rest of the EU, I just want to respond to a few things you have said newband :

is it ok to kill a new born baby? just because a baby is not technically 'alive' in the womb is irrelevant, the baby WILL become alive,
if i was to hit a pregnant woman in the belly and in turn kill the baby, would i not be tried for murder, of course i would, but why?? if the baby is not alive then how is it murder??

He wouldnt be tried for murder, because, as Lemming correctly stated, an unborn foetus is not a citizen of the State and no one can be tried for the killing a person who does not exist. He would more than likely be charged with aggravated assault occasional actual bodily harm. The circumstances of the individual case would determine the length of sentence when convicted by a jury.

Well actually if you live in Ohio you would indeed be charged with homicide of the unborn child if you attacked a pregnant woman carrying a viable foetus, resulting in the death of that foetus

American law does not apply here. Bringing foreign laws and policies into this argument is completely redundant, because they wont apply here. So, if we lived in Ohio, chances are we wouldnt be having this debate. Or maybe we would. Who knows? Point is - we dont live in Ohio. So t heir laws dont apply. End of story.

Fetal-murder laws have been passed in 29 states in America, and Congress is considering a federal law,, so if this situation were to happen then the perpatraitor WOULD be tried for murder/manslaughter

The perpetrator in another country etc etc etc... see above point.

if the pain etc bothered me that much then i would adopt instead,,, i have said this to my gf that if she thought that she couldn't go thru with a pregnancy because of the pain then i would happily adopt

Its about 12-36 hours of pain out of an entire lifetime. Is she that precious? Also, I would love to see how far you would get if you tried to adopt a child in this country. It is virtually impossible. There are no babies, and the people who are getting them are married couples in their late 30's who are very wealthy. Also, with some of your right wing views that you have displayed in this debate, I am not sure that any of the psychologists who would be screening you would be entirely happy to place a child with parents possessing such extreme values.

the morning after pill is used to prevent pregnancy

No. It is designed to abort any eggs which may have been fertilised. It aborts on or before point of conception. Its an abortion too.

to be honest i never gave it much thought before, but thinkin of it now, i would be against it,,,, the way i see it, people need to take respnsability, and if u do have sex with no protection wot so ever then u should take responsabilty

It is, in many cases, the 'responsible' thing to do after a one night stand. It is more responsible to take the Morning After Pill than to carry a child to term that was unplanned and more than likely unwanted.

we are really paranoid about gettin pregnant

We? Do you have a womb hidden somewhere? Do you keep it in a box, perchance? Should I call you Loreta?





Also... someone else posted the 'definition' for abortion as per dictionary.com ....

Thats one way to look at it.
Here is another :

Abortion : The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. From dictionary.com too.

A woman has a miscarraige. She has an abortion. At the hands of Mother Nature ..the biggest aborter of foetuses the world has ever known.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by embee
He wouldnt be tried for murder, because, as Lemming correctly stated, an unborn foetus is not a citizen of the State and no one can be tried for the killing a person who does not exist.

but the person does exist,, life begins at fertilization.. FACT

Originally posted by embee
Its about 12-36 hours of pain out of an entire lifetime. Is she that precious? Also, I would love to see how far you would get if you tried to adopt a child in this country. It is virtually impossible..

so i'd move..

Originally posted by embee
I am not sure that any of the psychologists who would be screening you would be entirely happy to place a child with parents possessing such extreme values. ..

they're extreme values in your opinion

Originally posted by embee
No. It is designed to abort any eggs which may have been fertilised. It aborts on or before point of conception. Its an abortion too...

may have been fertilized, i've already explained that i dont aggree with the mornin after pill and also stated myself that it is chemical abortion if the egg is fertilized, its just a shame that we can't determine that before hand

Originally posted by embee
It is, in many cases, the 'responsible' thing to do after a one night stand. It is more responsible to take the Morning After Pill than to carry a child to term that was unplanned and more than likely unwanted.

it is in ALL cases the responsable thing to slip a condom on or take the pill or BOTH,, and exactly how many babies in the world are the result of unplanned pregnancies, quite a lot i would say, so that would mean that they are unwanted but still kept and loved...

Originally posted by embee
We? Do you have a womb hidden somewhere? Do you keep it in a box, perchance?

oh i am sorry, i didn't realise i had no right to be paranoid about potentialy becoming a father,, that is just an idiotic thing to say and by that idiotic statement i assume that u are a woman and that u believe that the FATHER has no rights in a matter like this..

Originally posted by embee
A woman has a miscarraige. She has an abortion. At the hands of Mother Nature ..the biggest aborter of foetuses the world has ever known.

i'm sorry but no one can control mother nature so bringin that point up is rediculous,,, we are talking bout the woman who initiates the abortion in the first place disregarding the childs right to a life, mother nature doesn't come into it at all

embee

I refuse to get into a flame war with you, newband. This is the last post I am going to make to you directly.

but the person does exist,, life begins at fertilization.. FACT

The definition of 'life' as per dictionary.com :
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Keywords here.... 'response to stimuli.... ORIGINATING FROM WITHIN THE ORGANISM'

Your argument is flawed. From the moment of fertilisation, a fertilised egg does not respond to stimuli, and none of the above functions (metabolism, growth etc) origination from within the organism. The zygote draws ALL of the neccessary components to carry out these tasks from its host (ie. the female carrying it). 'Life' to me does not exist when an egg has just been fertilised. There is a potential, but it certainly isnt a life.

Also, on the same point, do you notice anything anyone ever says to you or are you so busy going off on this ill informed diatribe of yours to be aware of the the fact that, when I said that someone was not going to be tried for the murder of a person that doesnt exist, I was coming from the legal angle. Argue all you want, but that is the law.

they're extreme values in your opinion

I never disputed that that was my opinion. You will note that I said 'I am not sure etc...'. The 'I' should have given you your first clue that it was myself that I was referring to....

may have been fertilized, i've already explained that i dont aggree with the mornin after pill and also stated myself that it is chemical abortion if the egg is fertilized, its just a shame that we can't determine that before hand

Yes, 'may' have been. No one can tell whether or not conception has taken place. Its still an abortion. A woman who has an abortion is taking away a cluster of cells that 'may' turn into a baby. There are no 100% guarantees in this life.

it is in ALL cases the responsable thing to slip a condom on or take the pill or BOTH,, and exactly how many babies in the world are the result of unplanned pregnancies, quite a lot i would say, so that would mean that they are unwanted but still kept and loved...

And babies dont happen anyway? NO contraception on this planet is 100% effective. A couple who cannot afford to have a child, or cannot give it the emotional and mental support it needs are making what (to them) is a responsible decision to take a Morning After Pill. Who are you to be judge jury and executioner?

that is just an idiotic thing to say and by that idiotic statement i assume that u are a woman

Im sure your girlfriend would be thrilled to know that, as a woman, she is nothing but a mere idiot in your eyes.
I am sure its a comfort to her to know that you are completely comfortable with the fact that you are a sexist bigot.


You say that bringing Mother Nature into it is pointless etc... you say that this is a discussion about a woman who elects to have an abortion.... Your post which started this thread has the following question :

wots everyones opinion on abortion, is it right/wrong??

Nowhere did you go into specific scenarios, it is a generic question.

I would rather not stoop to pedantics, but apparently it is the only thing that seems to filter through to you.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by embee

Bringing foreign laws and policies into this argument is completely redundant, because they wont apply here. So, if we lived in Ohio, chances are we wouldnt be having this debate. Or maybe we would. Who knows? Point is - we dont live in Ohio. So t heir laws dont apply. End of story.

The U.K where most of our abortions are carried out is a foreign country.
also maybe you should ask your law student friend if, a U.S citizen from ohio is attacked in Dublin and goes home and has a mis-carriage there as a result, could the perpetrator be extradited

A couple who cannot afford to have a child, or cannot give it the emotional and mental support it needs are making what (to them) is a responsible decision to take a Morning After Pill. Who are you to be judge jury and executioner?

Well I agree with the use of the morning after pill, for my stated reasons,but once there is a foetus in the womb, thats where me and embee part company on this argument.It most certainly will in all likelyhood develop into a healthy baby if left alsone.
I most certainly wouldn't be in favour of executing it, for economic reasons or because it was inconvenient.
Partly because I believe I would be killing a child and partly because I believe as I stated earlier, no one should have the right to decide what entity goes on to live and what entity goes on to die.
But then they are my beliefs,I'll be judged on them when I die if there is a God as will those that carry out abortions.
I'd rather not take the risk that God approves of killing a foetus, it would seem inconsistant with everything else he has disapproved of.

amp

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Partly because I believe I would be killing a child and partly because I believe as I stated earlier, no one should have the right to decide what entity goes on to live and what entity goes on to die.

This is what I don't understand. I really don't. Potentially a couple could have unprotected sex and fertilize an egg. That egg could grow into a baby and lead a life. But if the couple doesn't have unprotected sex they are denying the possiblity of that egg getting fertilized and becoming a baby etc..

Therefore, by having protected sex, people are negating the existence of a fertilized egg just as surely as the morning after pill or an abortion. We deny potential human beings right to live every time we try to prevent a sperm from fusing with an egg.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by amp
But if the couple doesn't have unprotected sex they are denying the possiblity of that egg getting fertilized and becoming a baby etc..

Therefore, by having protected sex, people are negating the existence of a fertilized egg just as surely as the morning after pill or an abortion. We deny potential human beings right to live every time we try to prevent a sperm from fusing with an egg.

Ah no not at all,thats probably the Catholic Churches teaching allright.
They would rather you died of a venereal disease than have protected sex.
But then if we were to follow their crazy rules, I would still be a virgin, cause I'm not married :eek:

My position on that, is simple enough, I do not believe that I am denying life by not introducing you to my sister.
It is ridiculous in my view to talk about abortion in terms of discarded sperms and eggs prior to that foetus being created in the womb.
Bringing God back into it, if that was the case we are all going to Hell if he exists and applies that rule.

embee

The U.K where most of our abortions are carried out is a foreign country.

I am well aware that the UK is a foreign country, I am also well aware that UK laws do not apply here. There is no law which states that Irish women cannot go to the UK and have an abortion. And, when on UK soil, we withheld to the law of the UK. Concordantly, an Irish woman in the UK is perfectly entitled to walk into a clinic and have an abortion. I never for one minute stated that that made it 'legal' in Ireland.

I do believe that I said it was redundant to use foreign law as an argument as to whether or not abortion was right. The UK's status as a foreign country was never called into question.....


Your point about extradition.... I very much doubt it.

A woman from Ohio is attacked whilst visiting Dublin. Is more than likely hospitalized (if this attack is enough to induce miscarraige, it must be serious enough to require hospitalization), she recouperates, leaves Dublin and gets on a plane, endures a flight of several hours, and then at home, has a miscarraige? It could be very easily argued that there is no tenable link between the attack and the miscarraige, particularly if the woman had been in hospital and was being monitored and was discharged when her doctors felt it right. There is little evidence to suggest that it is, beyond reasonable doubt, a direct result of a physical injury obtained in the assault. The woman has had a long plane journey (never really a wise move for any pregnant woman) and it has taken some hours or even days from the time of the attack to the miscarraige. So, legally, it could be argued that there is a margin for doubt there. And when there is a reasonable doubt, no one could be convicted. There is no evidence to suggest that this woman would not have miscarried even if she was not attacked. And to say that miscarraige for no apparent reason is uncommon is not true. As many as 1 in 5 conceptions results in a miscarraige.

The case of the Italian student who was attacked in Dublin and beaten so badly that he is in a wheelchair - his assailant was not extradited.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by embee

The case of the Italian student who was attacked in Dublin and beaten so badly that he is in a wheelchair - his assailant was not extradited.

Yes but He wasn't pregnant and we do have an extradition agreement with the U.S, the country with the laws that brought this part of the discussion about.

The injured american woman may well fly home and miss carry as a result of the assault.
It's a possibility and don't tell me pregnant women don't fly, it's not recommended for sure in the latter stages of pregnancy.

The woman has had a long plane journey (never really a wise move for any pregnant woman) and it has taken some hours or even days from the time of the attack to the miscarraige. So, legally, it could be argued that there is a margin for doubt there. And when there is a reasonable doubt, no one could be convicted.

Reasonable doubt eh?
I doubt that, unless it could be shown that most pregnant women who fly from Ireland to the states (and who haven't been attacked whilst here) miss-carry their unborn children.
And I think you'll agree most pregnant women who fly over those distances carry their babies to term as normal.

an Irish woman in the UK is perfectly entitled to walk into a clinic and have an abortion.

Well we know that, up to a given stage of the pregnancy.
It's not as legal in Northern Ireland, interestingly enough, as the politicians there of all creeds, don't want elective abortion.

amp

Originally posted by Rock Climber

My position on that, is simple enough, I do not believe that I am denying life by not introducing you to my sister.

Why do you believe that you are denying life by not introducing someone to another person?

It is ridiculous in my view to talk about abortion in terms of discarded sperms and eggs prior to that foetus being created in the womb.

Why do you find it rediculous? You're don't seem to be backing up your beliefs with any reasoning.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by amp

Why do you believe that you are denying life by not introducing someone to another person?
[/B]

Well, the discussion is about the abortion of a created lifeform.
Perhaps I am denying life by not introducing you to my sister, but it's not an issue at that stage is it, it's certainly not a killing.
although, she's quite good looking, so if you do perchance meet her , in a different respect, you may reckon that you have made a killing

Why do you find it rediculous? You're don't seem to be backing up your beliefs with any reasoning.

Well I thought I had, you meeting my sister might lead to sex and might lead to the creation of a baby.
But the issue is clearcut when a foetus already exists, if it is left alone, it in all likelyhood will become what you and I am.
My sister probably won't meet you without my intervention.
Unless I introduce you theres next to no chance of a baby in that case.
Although there might be with someone else.

This brings the discussion into the realm of the film minority report...
Fantasy but interesting none the less

D!ve^Bomb!

ffs,,, i'm sick of this,

fact: life begins at fertilization

at the beginning, it is NOT just a bunch of cells ''potentially becoming a human being'' is utter bollox, it IS a human being with the potential to grow...

all this crap, includin an individual sperm and eggs rights are brought up here,,

case fukin closed, thank you, good day to u all

Doodee

fact: life begins at fertilization

ok, then which came first, chicken or the egg?

Excelsior

Mordeth: Although research can still be done in the area, we don't know for sure that babies are self aware until they are between 6 months and 9 months old.

Until then, they are not concious in a Cartesian sense. They do not think, "I think, therefore I am".

My friend's mom is the head of a ward in a Dublin hosptial for victims of neurological injury; adults who banged their heads. Many of them are no longer self aware. They are alive. Some can eat and some can walk or use wheelchairs. But they are not concious of their human identity anymore. Is it ok to kill them?

(Research still can be done on the onset of self-awareness because its an imprecise term and because the lack of motor skills limits the testing that can be done).

~~~

Abortion Rambling: My Contribution.

The issue boils down to whether or not the unborn entity is a human or a foetus. If it is a foetus, a collection of cells and nothing else, then abortion is a non-issue. We should be investing in abortion technology to make it safer, easier and cheaper.

If the unborn entity is a human, then abortion is murder- it is wrongful killing. In all instances.

Both sides have genuinely compelling arguments. Neither can make a decisive point though- there is always debate.

So when we can't decide based on the positive merits of the argument proposed, we can look at the negative consequences:

If the unborn entity is a collection of cells then banning it forces women to carry the foetus to term over nine emotionally and physically gruelling months. The future of the baby is uncertain if it is put into state care or adopted. The future of the baby and the woman (and perhaps the man involved) is uncertain because of the unexpected nature of the arrival. The situation is potentially ****ty for all concerned.

If the unborn entity is a human, then going against the arguments of pro-lifers and permitting abortion leads to murder. A human is deprived of life because of the planned and forethought actions of another.

Siding pro-life or pro-choice is a faith issue. No one can prove their sides argument. But the risks associated with being wrong and being pro-choice far outweigh possible benefits. The potential murder of a human is far more pressing and urgent than the potential difficulties of human life which AngelWhore less than eloquently or subtly described earlier.

For that reason, I am oppossed to abortion.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Excelsior
Abortion Rambling: My Contribution.

If the unborn entity is a human, then abortion is murder- it is wrongful killing. In all instances.

If the unborn entity is a human, then going against the arguments of pro-lifers and permitting abortion leads to murder.

For that reason, I am oppossed to abortion.

you say that 'if' the unborn entity is human then it is murder to abort.... a few posts ago i left a link explaining that from the moment of fertilization that entity IS a human being, not just a bunch of cells that has the potential to become one, but a bunch of cells that IS a human being with the potential to grow etc etc, this link also explains that everything i have just said is scientific fact, so isn't it fair to say that abortion, not matter how developed the fertilized egg is, is murder?? considering that life begins at conception(scientific fact)

Piliger

Originally posted by newband
ffs,,, i'm sick of this,

fact: life begins at fertilization

at the beginning, it is NOT just a bunch of cells ''potentially becoming a human being'' is utter bollox, it IS a human being with the potential to grow...

all this crap, includin an individual sperm and eggs rights are brought up here,,

case fukin closed, thank you, good day to u all

Wow . . I really found that argument convincing. Thanks for a great contribution.

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
a few posts ago i left a link explaining that from the moment of fertilization that entity IS a human being, not just a bunch of cells that has the potential to become one, but a bunch of cells that IS a human being with the potential to grow etc etc

Tell me this mr. I'm-20-and-I-know-everything-and-you-don't ... if the paper provided in your aforementioned link is so utterly grounded in "scientific fact" and been judged by peer review to be, hasn't the scientific community gotten behind it?

The very first paragraph showed the author was preaching from the pulpit and had an agenda other than the "advancement of science". Further, what is the author a Ph.D of? Cheese Appreciation? Countless papers get submitted to science journals every year and get mauled by peer review as being flawed.

Just because it's on the 1nt0rw3b doesn't mean it's true .... :rolleyes:

The author, giving further evidence of preaching, consantly writes "scientific fact" (grammatically as is with the quotes) everytime he used the phrase. Not the way decent papers are written. It shows personal bias and not objectivity. I can almost see him sneering everytime he wrote the phrase.

Also what raises doubts for me is the use of a LOT of rhetoric towards the end of his paper. Hardly "scientific fact" as he is want to say....

, this link also explains that everything i have just said is scientific fact,

See above.

Considering that life begins at conception(scientific fact)

scientific fact according to WHOM exactly? Further, if I may be allowed to use cold, analytical, objective scientific observation; define what type of "life"? A lot of "life" begins in the same manner and is remarkably similar for a short period of time. After all, all life on this planet has a single point of origin ......