abortion

D!ve^Bomb!

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

personnaly i dont think u'll believe anyone other than yourself, no matter wot sources i were to use i think u would continuously accuse it of being unreputable,,, i have expressed an opinion and produced evidence to back up my opinons... u on the other hand have produced no such evidence to back up your opinions...

as far as i'm concerned i have proved my point and the matter is closed, u can go on believing wot u want

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
personnaly i dont think u'll believe anyone other than yourself, no matter wot sources i were to use i think u would continuously accuse it of being unreputable,,,

Eh .. newband, have you once in your tiny mind considered that the source you just used might not have been entirely reputable?

Answer my charges on that paper please .... shoot down my analysis in a scientific manner. Show me and everyone else that what I said is incorrect and that that paper is accurate and based on objectivity.

i have expressed an opinion and produced evidence to back up my opinons...

Questionable evidence. Not very scientific looking evidence at that. Sure, plenty of big words and technicality, but far too much rhetoric, which immediately makes me suspicious of it's scientific merit.

If you're going to use scientific means to argue, then be prepared for peer-review. Be prepared to defend and elaborate on what you quote. I'll be surprised if you can provide a concise synopsis of that paper that does not include ANY rhetoric.

u on the other hand have produced no such evidence to back up your opinions...

Eh, no. I've analysed every comment you've made, weighed it up and provided my thoughts on why I do or not consider it accurate or plausible.

Further, I'll not waste my valuable time hunting for full sources on arguing with you since you would not give them more than a cursory glance, like most other people's post content. I knew what you were from the moment I read your first post.

as far as i'm concerned i have proved my point and the matter is closed, u can go on believing wot u want

My my - so sure...... so self-righteous and unwilling to listen to what others have said against your arguments.

The trait of the delusional

Lemming

Quoted from newband's authoritave bible

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists—not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.

A human being and a human person are one and same. One cannot exist without the other. A person has "to be" in order to exist. The author has immediately started digging his hole. He has seperated the sentience already from within his own argument. What he has essentially just said that a "template" exists from which the "person" is derived at some point during pregnancy. So the person is not there initially, only a somewhat-generic template.

Astounding use of rhetoric (with just a hint of a sneer) too in his listing of who should answer what.

If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions.

Being incorrect and invalid swings both ways. The fact that he is going to use "myths" to argue his case is flawed, further compounded by the fact that he "believes" the opposing views he gives _SHOULD_ in his opinion debunk these myths. He gives no other evidence other than his "belief". He simply states the "myth" & then the "fact" by way of direct quotation of someone else. He does not elaborate his thoughts on why the quote should debunk the alleged myth.

Amazing what one can do with Ctrl-c and Ctrl-v key combinations .....

Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts

if these "myths" have been around for so long, and the "actual objective scientific facts" have also, why hasn't this been pointed out before if it's so painfully obvious. The author brings nothing new to the table after all ....

This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks

WHy does he feel the need to mention direct quotes being from highly respected scientists? What is he trying to shore up? Further, the fact that all of the "scientific facts" he provides are direct quotes - but not as he points out, full quotes, then they are being taken out of context. It is easy to alter how something would appear by simply ommitting prior or further detail.

I'm going to stop here since I'm in work right now and have better things to be doing

amp

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

...

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

If everybody isn't civil I'll ban them.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
I ALREADY ANSWERED THE F*CKING QUESTION YOU MUPPET!!!!

amp

why is it that i have been told that i would be banned if not civil TWICE yet you have failed to repremand lemming for this comment AT ALL, do the rules not apply to him or something

androphobic

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

fact: life begins at fertilization

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

It never fails to amaze me how many people feel they can comment on something like abortion, when their only real considerations on the matter amount to some bigoted pro-life argument.

It's funny how people feel they can stuff their opinions down your throat when they really have no clue what it is like to have to make such a decision.

Some people here are as bad as the people on O'Connell Street, standing outside the GPO with their pictures and their politically correct, warped states of mind. Imagine what it's like for someone post-abortion to walk past that.

Abortion is a choice. Not an easy one. Not one anyone wants to make. Dictated by circumstances... some circumstances cannot be controlled. An abortion isn't something that you can have and forget about afterwards. It's something that will never leave you and will always haunt you for as long as there are people like newband around who think they are some sort of authority on the subject and feel they can condemn people's horribly difficult personal decisions - decisions which they themselves really have no clue about - just because they have sex.

Sometimes it seems that Ireland is moving backwards, not forwards. Come back to me when you have a clue.

amp

Originally posted by newband
amp

why is it that i have been told that i would be banned if not civil TWICE yet you have failed to repremand lemming for this comment AT ALL, do the rules not apply to him or something

Point taken, I've altered my warning. Both you and Lemming are on yellow cards. Just keep it civil. Back on topic.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by androphobic
It never fails to amaze me how many people feel they can comment on something like abortion, when their only real considerations on the matter amount to some bigoted pro-life argument.

As opposed to what kind of argument on the other side?
how would my views on the subject be bigoted for instance?
Although "pro-life", I'm all for this being a personal choice, I just state the reasoning behind why I wouldn't promote it as a choice.

Abortion is a choice. Not an easy one. Not one anyone wants to make. Dictated by circumstances... some circumstances cannot be controlled. An abortion isn't something that you can have and forget about afterwards. It's something that will never leave you and will always haunt you for as long as there are people like newband around who think they are some sort of authority on the subject and feel they can condemn people's horribly difficult personal decisions - decisions which they themselves really have no clue about - just because they have sex.

This is interesting-if theres nothing morally or ethically wrong with abortion, why fret about it? Why is it such a difficult decision, after all , to the pro-abortion camp in this thread, it's just another operation.

Why is it so traumatic and why the guilt, why is it not something that you can have but not forget about afterwards?

It doesn't compute when you analyise it that way.
On the one hand it's just a meaningless bunch of cells, but getting rid of that bunch of cells causes so much emotional pain for some.
That usually indicates a wrong, for if it was right , it would be as easy as getting the appendix out, which indeed is what some equate it to.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by amp
Point taken, I've altered my warning. Both you and Lemming are on yellow cards. Just keep it civil. Back on topic.

coolaboola

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
A human being and a human person are one and same. One cannot exist without the other. A person has "to be" in order to exist. The author has immediately started digging his hole.

He simply states the "myth" & then the "fact" by way of direct quotation of someone else. He does not elaborate his thoughts on why the quote should debunk the alleged myth.

Amazing what one can do with Ctrl-c and Ctrl-v key combinations .....

if these "myths" have been around for so long, and the "actual objective scientific facts" have also, why hasn't this been pointed out before if it's so painfully obvious. The author brings nothing new to the table after all ....

WHy does he feel the need to mention direct quotes being from highly respected scientists? What is he trying to shore up? Further, the fact that all of the "scientific facts" he provides are direct quotes - but not as he points out, full quotes, then they are being taken out of context.

i think if you were to look around on the web u will find this same article on MANY different sites about pregnancy and abortion etc etc includin here which has full quotes.... i think it is fair to say that given the number of times this article is featured on pregnancy sites, all articles quoting the same Dr Carlson, that it is a very reputable source, but i am sure you are gonna proceed to think otherwise

androphobic

Originally posted by Rock Climber
This is interesting-if theres nothing morally or ethically wrong with abortion, why fret about it? Why is it such a difficult decision, after all , to the pro-abortion camp in this thread, it's just another operation.

That usually indicates a wrong, for if it was right , it would be as easy as getting the appendix out, which indeed is what some equate it to.

I did not speak of wrongs or rights. Abortion is not a black and white issue, Rock Climber. And that's the very problem - that pro-lifer's look at it like that. They ignore the grey areas and just jump in and say "It's murder.. it's wrong". If that is someone's private opinion, that's fine with me. But this public brandishing of pictures and condemnation of something which no-one truly wanted to have to do.. well that's too much.

I have not equated it to getting your appendix removed and never would. To me, it's much more than that. It's not just a simple operation.
How could anyone hope to get over or forget about something which is made out to be such an evil?
In this little country of ours, society says abortion is wrong. Plain and simple.. wrong. So every year thousands and thousands of Irish women go to England, secretly, pretending it's a holiday or something. And then when they come back they have to act like nothing's happened. Because it's taboo.
There's only so long you can sweep something under the carpet for. Whether people like it or not, despite being illegal, abortion is an Irish problem.

Very few people are pro-abortion, Rock Climber. They are pro-choice. And if someone chooses to terminate their pregnancy then that is their choice, their decision and theirs alone. And that should be respected. I'm not looking to argue the in's and out's or the right's and the wrong's of the issue. That's all been done before. I'm simply saying that it's not that simple. And for someone to condemn something that they've never had to go through.. well you can't get much more heartless than that.

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
i think if you were to look around on the web u will find this same article on MANY different sites about pregnancy and abortion etc etc includin here which has full quotes....

Eh ... and all these sites would be what exactly newband? anti-abortion sites perchance? :rolleyes:

not exactly impartial and the holy-grail of scientific objectivity are they now. The fact that they are all quoting this same article, which I've poked holes in with 20 mins of speed-reading/analysis doesn't hold good for the calibre of said sites.

You still haven't answered to the charges I made against the quoted paper either.

Rhetoric does not a scientifically objective analysis make! Have you ever actually read, or had to write a scientific-oriented thesis newband? I sincerely doubt it given that you would at best be 3 years into a college degree starting age 17.

i think it is fair to say that given the number of times this article is featured on pregnancy sites, all articles quoting the same Dr Carlson, that it is a very reputable source, but i am sure you are gonna proceed to think otherwise

I think it's fair to say my above observation on these sites and their "impartiality" and "non-pushing-of-agendas" speaks volums also.

Please, answer the charges against his paper that I've made. You want to use scientific basis to argue your point, then be prepared for peer-review.

Debate and defend your thoughts on WHY this paper is accurate.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
A human being and a human person are one and same. One cannot exist without the other. A person has "to be" in order to exist. The author has immediately started digging his hole. He has seperated the sentience already from within his own argument. What he has essentially just said that a "template" exists from which the "person" is derived at some point during pregnancy. So the person is not there initially, only a somewhat-generic template.

this is all explained in my second link..

Originally posted by Lemming
if these "myths" have been around for so long, and the "actual objective scientific facts" have also, why hasn't this been pointed out before if it's so painfully obvious. The author brings nothing new to the table after all .....

myths will always be around, no matter wot scientific fact exsists...

Originally posted by Lemming
WHy does he feel the need to mention direct quotes being from highly respected scientists? What is he trying to shore up? Further, the fact that all of the "scientific facts" he provides are direct quotes - but not as he points out, full quotes, then they are being taken out of context. It is easy to alter how something would appear by simply ommitting prior or further detail.

i have already provided the link with full quotes, as you said, these quotes are from highly respected scientists, are u a highly respected scientist, errm, no.... so which person do u think people should believe, you, a person with an opinion in which he still hasn't backed up, or a respected scientist who actually knows wot he is talkin about,,, i choose the scientist

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
not exactly impartial and the holy-grail of scientific objectivity are they now. The fact that they are all quoting this same article, which I've poked holes in with 20 mins of speed-reading/analysis doesn't hold good for the calibre of said sites.

i have also poked holes in your arguments.. and where are the sites that back up your opinions:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Lemming
Have you ever actually read, or had to write a scientific-oriented thesis newband? I sincerely doubt it given that you would at best be 3 years into a college degree starting age 17..

have you??

Originally posted by Lemming
Debate and defend your thoughts on WHY this paper is accurate.

defend your own thoughts, explain to me why your opinon is soo accurate, also explain to me why u think my opinion is inaccurate

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
this is all explained in my second link..

Please quote the relevant paragraphs and state WHY you consider them to explain everything. Stop just plagarising. This is also a critical flaw of the author of your previously linked paper.

myths will always be around, no matter wot scientific fact exsists...

turn and turn about.

i have already provided the link with full quotes, as you said, these quotes are from highly respected scientists, are u a highly respected scientist, errm, no.... so which person do u think people should believe, you, a person with an opinion in which he still hasn't backed up, or a respected scientist who actually knows wot he is talkin about,,, i choose the scientist

I would not consider myself a highly respected scientist. I do carry knowledge in my field, so I would consider my views to be some way respected amongst my field peers and work-colleagues. To consider myself "highly respected" would be arrogant of me. There are others far greater in skill/knowledge in my field than I.

I haven't had to back up my argument, since I'm not tabling a paper for peer review. You are. A little knowledge in the hands of the ignorant is a dangerous thing. You don't have a clue what you're on about newband.

i have also poked holes in your arguments.. and where are the sites that back up your opinions

No. No you haven't actually. All you've done is plagarised someone else's work and expecting everyone to suddenly see some hidden meaning. You haven't explained why YOU THINK the quoted material is accurate. And that's probably because you haven't a f*cking clue where to begin nor what the hell you're actually quoting.

have you??

Yes actually. Not biology related, but of a scientific discipline none the less (A.I. if you want to know - which ironically does bear some indirect relevance to this thread), so I at least know what to look for in a paper to consider it's merits/cons.

defend your own thoughts, explain to me why your opinon is soo accurate, also explain to me why u think my opinion is inaccurate

Not until you answer to my original thoughts. I explained why I considered the paper to be flawed, based on logic and reason. I want you to debate that before I even consider pandering to any more of your demands.

As I've said before, the reason why you've not is, I suspect, because you haven't a clue what you're quoting and are unable to discuss it.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by androphobic

I have not equated it to getting your appendix removed and never would. To me, it's much more than that. It's not just a simple operation.
How could anyone hope to get over or forget about something which is made out to be such an evil?
In this little country of ours, society says abortion is wrong. Plain and simple.. wrong.

It's not just Irish women who have difficulty agonising over the decision to abort.
So what is it that has affected women the world over to make them feel like that?
why do they feel so bad about it, it's a legitimate question,why is there so much emotion involved in removing this bunch of cells if it's worthless?

And for someone to condemn something that they've never had to go through.. well you can't get much more heartless than that.

Well the world is certainly full of all sorts of people, and some people legitimately feel strong enough to condemn abortion as murder.
I'd belong to the group that accepts peoples choice to make the decision to abort, but feel it is wrong,very wrong, for the reasons I already outlined in this thread.
I don't accept the assertion that, the guilt trip is a particularally Catholic thing or something exclusive to the "backward Irish".
Abortion law in Northern Ireland is as strict almost as in the Republic and as I said earlier in this thread, the most protestant politician there opposes the repeal of the law as do most.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
Please quote the relevant paragraphs and state WHY you consider them to explain everything. Stop just plagarising. This is also a critical flaw of the author of your previously linked paper.

i didn't say that it explained EVERYTHING, i said that it confirms wot I have said.. the reason i posted the link was to prove that from the moment an egg is fertilized it is not just a ''bunch of cells'', it is a human being..

As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother’s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

this is not plagarizm, this is merely me backing up MY opinions with ''scientific fact'' produced by a reputable source and reputable scientist who knows wot he is talking about, this is also wot the author has done, using quotes by a reputable scientist to get his/her point across... u mistake plagarising from common sense,,, common sense meaning in this case, u have an opinion, u back it up, simple as

Originally posted by Lemming
I would not consider myself a highly respected scientist. I do carry knowledge in my field, so I would consider my views to be some way respected amongst my field peers and work-colleagues..

yes but your field has nothin to do with this subject matter so this is irrelavant

Originally posted by Lemming
A little knowledge in the hands of the ignorant is a dangerous thing. You don't have a clue what you're on about newband...

does this reputable scientist also not know wot he is on about because i share the same views

Originally posted by Lemming
No. No you haven't actually. All you've done is plagarised someone else's work and expecting everyone to suddenly see some hidden meaning....

no i haven't as i have already explained

Originally posted by Lemming
Not biology related, but of a scientific discipline none the less (A.I. if you want to know - which ironically does bear some indirect relevance to this thread)

ironically, it doesn't have any relevance to this thread, if your thesis wasn't biologically based then how does it have relevance to this thread,, just because it was scientifically based means absolutely nothing... i'm sure that this scientists thesis was biologically based considering tha content of the artical, considering his main scientific area is biology it is safe to assume that his knowledge of this subject far outweighs yours and his opinion far more reputable than yours.. i just happen to agree with him, lucky me

Originally posted by Lemming
I explained why I considered the paper to be flawed, based on logic and reason.

logic and reason often means nothin,,, it is logical to assume if one were to have sex then it is possible for one to become pregnant, if one were to become pregnant then it is logical to assume that one would have a baby, it is reasonable to say that the baby has a right to live given that the baby is a human being... it is unreasonable to kill a baby because it was unplanned or because it may interfere with ones own life... abortion in itself is illogical

Wolfie

Abortion is murder.

If a girl suffers a rape and wants an abortion then that is her choice. The rapist is really causing the murder of that child, not the victim (girl + unborn child).

If a girl was raped and got an abortion, then I would not feel hostile towards her, as I would towards the girl who has casual sex many times, gets pregnant several times, and gets abortions several times.

Our society is clinically cold and amoral and at times immoral, we have murder-clinics which destroy unborn babies for money. We have sex offenders who target women, and who target children.

Rapists are the scum of the earth, they should be castrated if convicted.

Dont confuse advancement of civilisation with freedom of choice if that freedom causes moral degradation and decline. Freedom is a gift that many people dont deserve or know how to handle responsibly. That reason alone - the fact that many would abuse right to abortion - should prevent it ever being legal in this country.

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
i didn't say that it explained EVERYTHING, i said that it confirms wot I have said.. <inane drivel>

this is not plagarizm, this is merely me backing up MY opinions with ''scientific fact'' produced by a reputable source and reputable scientist who knows wot he is talking about, this is also wot the author has done, using quotes by a reputable scientist to get his/her point across... u mistake plagarising from common sense,,, common sense meaning in this case, u have an opinion, u back it up, simple as

It confirms squat. The author has brought nothing new to the table. And in any case do you actually know what pla ...

No, what am I saying? You don't. You haven't a f*cking clue.

So I'm going to stop mid-sentence, and call you for what you are. It's not worth the effort of my time.

yes but your field has nothin to do with this subject matter so this is irrelavant

So what's your field? I'm surrrre it's brimming with relevance ...... are you a doctor?

does this reputable scientist also not know wot he is on about because i share the same views

See my statement on you not knowing what the f*ck you're on about. I am not criticising his views. I'm criticising his paper. His work which he has submitted for peer review.

no i haven't as i have already explained[/quote[

No you haven't. ANd you still haven't answered my charges. Why not? If you understand this stuff enough to quote it ad verbatim, then why can't you discuss it? Don't you understant it? I'm sure you can read it, and memorise it, but do you actually understand it? Like I said, see back to my point concerning you and having a clue.

ironically, it doesn't have any relevance to this thread, if your thesis wasn't biologically based then how does it have relevance to this thread,,

Well, in the study of AI comes the philisophical debate on what is "alive". At what point does intelligence become sentience, etc etc. so it actually IS relevant, in a somewhat indirect manner. But we are digressing from the issue at hand. Namely abortion.

just because it was scientifically based means absolutely nothing

I at no point stated that my thesis itself was important to this discussion. My point was that I HAVE written a thesis based on science. Therefore I know what to look for in a scientific paper. And what not to look for.

... i'm sure that this scientists thesis was biologically based considering tha content of the artical, considering his main scientific area is biology it is safe to assume that his knowledge of this subject far outweighs yours and his opinion far more reputable than yours.. i just happen to agree with him, lucky me

I never said I knew more than him. I called his paper on it's flaws. Seriousl, fundamental flaws at that. Objectivity and impartiality. ANd you still haven't answered my charges on them.

logic <snip>inane drivel that only newband could write</snip> illogical

You sir, are an *****. You do not have a clue what you're quoting, hence you are unable to provide me with REASONS why your "evidence" is accurate. All you can do is quote ad verbatim. Christ, you can't even comprehend my question to answer it!! You are not only an *****, but a plagarising ***** at that.

At this time I'm going to follow the rather sound advice in my signature and not argue with you anymore.

You have my pity.

---

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

ixoy

Originally posted by Wolfie
Dont confuse advancement of civilisation with freedom of choice if that freedom causes moral degradation and decline. Freedom is a gift that many people dont deserve or know how to handle responsibly. That reason alone - the fact that many would abuse right to abortion - should prevent it ever being legal in this country.

Precisely. People often confuse having a "right" to something with meaning that they can refute the concept of responsibility. It's shown in little things like atittudes to smoking bans, to more important matters such as abortion. It's all well and good to try and place faith in people, but history has shown us that many people have, and continue to, abuse the priviliges granted by society.

Noone in this thread, newband included I assume, is denying the choice of abortion to victims of rape, but I agree with wolfie is that a walk-in clinic service will leave itself open to abuse by those who don't take the responsibility that comes with their right to enjoy sexual activities.

Beruthiel

Originally posted by ixoy
but I agree with wolfie is that a walk-in clinic service will leave itself open to abuse by those who don't take the responsibility that comes with their right to enjoy sexual activities.

alcohol is open to abuse, should we ban that too?

You would make 99.9% of women suffer because of a tiny minority :rolleyes:

seamus

Originally posted by ixoy
Noone in this thread, newband included I assume, is denying the choice of abortion to victims of rape, but I agree with wolfie is that a walk-in clinic service will leave itself open to abuse by those who don't take the responsibility that comes with their right to enjoy sexual activities.

I don't think anyone's extolling the virtues of a walk-in abortion clinic ("You bring 'em, we'll bin 'em"). Even the most liberal abortion clinic I could imagine would involve education of the woman before the procedure. Abortion is a very demanding, and sometimes damaging process, both physically and mentally. Some women may become more likely to miscarraige afterwards, or may even become sterile. Others can suffer from post-natal depression

I don't think anyone with even half a conscience could carry out a 'quickie' abortion.

ixoy

Originally posted by Beruthiel
You would make 99.9% of women suffer because of a tiny minority :rolleyes:

Do you believe that 99.9% of abortions (where available - thus not Ireland) are the result of rape and/or physical threat to the woman involved?

Beruthiel

Originally posted by ixoy
Do you believe that 99.9% of abortions (where available - thus not Ireland) are the result of rape and/or physical threat to the woman involved?

if you look carefully, I was refering to your comment

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
You haven't a f*cking clue.

So what's your field? I'm surrrre it's brimming with relevance ...... are you a doctor?

See my statement on you not knowing what the f*ck you're on about.

please enlighten me,,,, u dont seem to grasp wot i have done,,,, all i am doing in this thread is express my opinion, people like you seem to dismiss that opinion, so i found an article by a reputable scientist that confirms my opinion,,, its not that hard to understand,

Originally posted by Lemming
Well, in the study of AI comes the philisophical debate on what is "alive". At what point does intelligence become sentience, etc etc. so it actually IS relevant, in a somewhat indirect manner. But we are digressing from the issue at hand. Namely abortion.

exactly we are disgressing from the matter at hand because A.I has nothin to do with abortion..

Originally posted by Lemming
I at no point stated that my thesis itself was important to this discussion. My point was that I HAVE written a thesis based on science. Therefore I know what to look for in a scientific paper. And what not to look for.

i dont care wot u need to look for, i looked for scientific facts that coincides with my own opinion,, and guess wot, i found them..

Originally posted by Lemming
I never said I knew more than him. I called his paper on it's flaws. Seriousl, fundamental flaws at that. Objectivity and impartiality. ANd you still haven't answered my charges on them.

so u admit to having far less knowledge on the matter

Originally posted by Lemming
You sir, are an *****. You do not have a clue what you're quoting, hence you are unable to provide me with REASONS why your "evidence" is accurate. All you can do is quote ad verbatim. Christ, you can't even comprehend my question to answer it!! You are not only an *****, but a plagarising ***** at that.

now now lemming, theres no need for that, u could get yourself banned...

these quotes are from a respectable scientist who has a great knowledge in the matter, so far i haven't found ANYTHING else that contradicts these quotes, or to prove the article innacurate.. have u?? if u were to go to the doctor tommorrow and he was to tell you that u have diabetes, would u tell him he is innacurate and wrong, no, u would accept his opinion because he is a professional and KNOWS WOT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.. so far you have not done ANYTHING to prove the article innaccurate or produced any such evidence to confirm your own opinions on the matter, now why is that lemming??

Originally posted by lemming
logic <snip>inane drivel that only newband could write</snip> illogical

i assume you are refering to this

logic and reason often means nothin,,, it is logical to assume if one were to have sex then it is possible for one to become pregnant, if one were to become pregnant then it is logical to assume that one would have a baby, it is reasonable to say that the baby has a right to live given that the baby is a human being... it is unreasonable to kill a baby because it was unplanned or because it may interfere with ones own life... abortion in itself is illogical

please explain how this is drivel...

ixoy

Originally posted by Beruthiel
if you look carefully, I was refering to your comment

How? I'm talking about a "walk in" clinic being open to abuse. I'm not talking about no clinics at all. I've already said that, in certain circumstances, the option could be explored. These would not be "walk in" clinics. They'd be far mopre controlled. How would this option deny 99.9% of women?

androphobic

Originally posted by Rock Climber
why do they feel so bad about it, it's a legitimate question,why is there so much emotion involved in removing this bunch of cells if it's worthless?

With all due respect, Rock Climber, you are trying to get me to say that abortion is morally wrong. And I can't say that because that's not the way I see it. As I stated above, it's an extremely grey area and not something that can be classified as black or white, right or wrong.

But I will attempt to answer your question nevertheless. I feel that the emotion involved is related not to what this "bunch of cells" was at that time, but what it could have been in the future, had it been allowed to grow and develop. Although someone may feel that they are only getting rid of a "bunch of cells", that does not mean that they don't realise that this "bunch of cells" has the potential to become a child. The decision to have a termination is riddled with if's and but's and what if's. But at the end of the day, it should be a private and personal choice. And that privacy should be respected.

androphobic

Originally posted by Wolfie
If a girl was raped and got an abortion, then I would not feel hostile towards her, as I would towards the girl who has casual sex many times, gets pregnant several times, and gets abortions several times.

And what about the girl who is in a relationship and uses contraception but gets pregnant anyway? And consequently has an abortion.
No casual sex, no promiscuity.. contraception does not work 100% of the time and there are always exceptions.

What would you feel towards that girl, Wolfie? You'd condemn her too, right? Because it's just plain wrong?
Unless you know the person personally, you don't know anyone's reasons behind their decision to terminate their pregnancy. You don't know what their past was like and you don't know what their future could be like. You don't know if they're unemployed or in college. You don't know what their financial situation is like. You don't know what state their relationship is in. You don't know if they have any contact with their parents. You don't know what their support network is like. You don't know diddly squat.

Condemnation without knowing is ignorance in itself.

Originally posted by Wolfie
Freedom is a gift that many people dont deserve or know how to handle responsibly. That reason alone - the fact that many would abuse right to abortion - should prevent it ever being legal in this country.

Just because it's not available here does not mean it's going to go away.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by androphobic
Although someone may feel that they are only getting rid of a "bunch of cells", that does not mean that they don't realise that this "bunch of cells" has the potential to become a child.

there is no potential about it, that ''bunch of cells'' is a human being as addressed in the link i provided before...

Fact 2 : As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother’s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

Fact 3 : As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It’s an actual human being—with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by androphobic
Although someone may feel that they are only getting rid of a "bunch of cells", that does not mean that they don't realise that this "bunch of cells" has the potential to become a child.

Well there is the nail on the head.
The potential does matter to some of those that feel bad after the fact.
The potential is gone once the unborn child has been killed.
Maternal instincts might be outweighed by what some regard as social or economic imperatives, but then mother nature ( not the catholic church or any church really ) comes back to underline the unpleasantness or the wrongness of the choice.