abortion

seamus

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

That link is crap. There is no science in it whatsoever, just a few quotes from some guys. It doesn't prove that a ball of cells is a human individual, it just says it is. Read it again. Over and over. There is no science in that link.

You can say a ball of cells is a human life until you're blue in the face, but it's a shaky argument. The ball of cells is in fact a parasite in the mother's body, consuming her resources for the purpose of growth, with no respect whatsoever for teh well-being of it's host. That's what parasites do. Humans aren't parasites. If you believe that it's an actual human being, fine. That's your opinion. Hold onto it. But don't for one second think that a few sparse quotes of the opinions of someone else makes any difference because they have M.Sc. or Ph.D. after their name or use big words.

It's all opinion.

(For the record, I don't consider it a parasite to be eradicated, just making the point that a tiny ball of cells in someone's body can be classed as a lot of things.)

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by seamus
You can say a ball of cells is a human life until you're blue in the face, but it's a shaky argument. The ball of cells is in fact a parasite in the mother's body, consuming her resources for the purpose of growth, with no respect whatsoever for teh well-being of it's host. That's what parasites do. Humans aren't parasites. If you believe that it's an actual human being, fine.

(For the record, I don't consider it a parasite to be eradicated, just making the point that a tiny ball of cells in someone's body can be classed as a lot of things.)

you're right, a tiny bunch of cells could be classed as alot of things,,, but this isn't just a bunch of cells, it is a fertilized egg that is a human being,,, bringing parasites into this is pointless, because this particular ''bunch of cells'' is NOT a parasite:rolleyes:

Originally posted by seamus
But don't for one second think that a few sparse quotes of the opinions of someone else makes any difference because they have M.Sc. or Ph.D. after their name or use big words.

who would u rather i believe? u? have u ever been to the doctor?? why?? just because they went to college and studied medicine for YEARS AND YEARS, who cares, wot do they know:dunno:

Silent Grape

there's a difference between potential for existance and actual existence

D!ve^Bomb!

here is a lil info on the author of the article that i posted

Dr. Irving's professional activities include teaching positions at Georgetown University, Catholic University of America, and The Dominican House of Studies. She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo". Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, MD), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and Professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics.

i think it is safe to assume that it's from a reputable source... she also qoutes MANY different scientists in the link,,, are they all wrong??

skittishkitten

It's the womans choice , her body , her right. No one should be able to tell another what to do with their body. It's my understanding most abortions are preformed because of a pregnancy from a crime or health reasons. I refuse to fight with anyone over this , it's my belief , I will not change my mind . I don't think anyone , male or female, can truly appreciate this unless they are THAT female faced with an unwanted or potentially deadly pregnancy . To say that you can is to decieve yourself , until it's YOU , you have no concept of the impact it holds .

Silent Grape

yes, but u can still have opinions on the subject, especially if ur half of a baby is inside that oh so sacred,'no one understands except me' body
i hate all this self reightous feminism ****e

Rock Climber

Originally posted by skittishkitten
It's the womans choice , her body , her right. No one should be able to tell another what to do with their body.

Never said anything to contradict that.
I merely pointed out what was happening to the unborn child as a result of those decisions.
It is killed.
People have the right to tell me what to do with my body by the way already as they do have the right to tell you what to do with yours in certain cases.
It's unlawfull for me to use my body to kill another person If I hit someone with my fist and kill them I'll be tried for murder, I've used my body for that.
But then nobody should have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, so maybe I should be aquitted yes?

It's my understanding most abortions are preformed because of a pregnancy from a crime or health reasons. I refuse to fight with anyone over this , it's my belief , I will not change my mind .

And where did you get that statistic from?
links please.

amp

Originally posted by newband
here is a lil info on the author of the article that i posted

Dr. Irving's professional activities include teaching positions at Georgetown University, Catholic University of America, and The Dominican House of Studies. She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo". Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, MD), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and Professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics.

i think it is safe to assume that it's from a reputable source... she also qoutes MANY different scientists in the link,,, are they all wrong??

Interesting that she's represented the Catholic Medical Association Part of it's mission is to "To lead the Christian community in the work of communicating Catholic medical ethics to the medical profession and the community-at-large."

Also on this website there is The Promise of The Catholic Physician which includes:

"3. To defend and protect human life from conception to its natural end, believing that human life, transmitted by parents, is created by God and has an eternal destiny that belongs to Him."

Now, given that Dr. Irving is a member of this association she would have to make sure her findings were safely in agreement with the above statement. This, to my mind, puts her squarely in the pro-life camp and therefore biased.

To display a convincing balanced argument I'd like to see evidence from a pro-choice biased scientist or ideally a scientist who is actually impartial. Therefore I do not think it's safe to assume that she could be called a reputuable source.

seamus

Originally posted by newband
you're right, a tiny bunch of cells could be classed as alot of things,,, but this isn't just a bunch of cells, it is a fertilized egg that is a human being,,, bringing parasites into this is pointless, because this particular ''bunch of cells'' is NOT a parasite:rolleyes:

Yes it is, from a certain point of view. From another point of view it's a human individual. From yet another point of view, it's a bag of chemicals, no more significant than a lump of skin sheared from someone's thigh. There are multiple ways of looking at things.

who would u rather i believe? u? have u ever been to the doctor?? why?? just because they went to college and studied medicine for YEARS AND YEARS, who cares, wot do they know:dunno:

I haven't expressed an opinion on it either way. I'm asking you examine your own opinions. Are you believing these people because they're doctors? That's a fool's trust. For hundreds of years, some doctors have been the biggest barrier to the development of their own field ("The earth is flat", "You can't fly faster than the speed of sound"), while other doctors in the same field have directly opposed them. How do you know who's right? I'm simply suggesting that you examine the evidence for yourself, and build your own opinion. Don't take someone's word for it "because they studied for years and years". Everyone has an alterior motive. Plenty of pro-choice sided doctors are equally as guilty as their opposites of altering evidence to make it appear as if they're right.

i think it is safe to assume that it's from a reputable source... she also qoutes MANY different scientists in the link,,, are they all wrong??

I have yet to see any evidence apat from "I'm a doctor, I say this is a human individual, therefore it must be". How does "It's a ball of cells, created from a sperm and an egg, and has the potential to be a human, therefore it must be a human individual" count as solid proof that it's human? It's just another opinion.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by amp
Interesting that she's represented the Catholic Medical Association Part of it's mission is to "To lead the Christian community in the work of communicating Catholic medical ethics to the medical profession and the community-at-large."

Also on this website there is The Promise of The Catholic Physician which includes:

"3. To defend and protect human life from conception to its natural end, believing that human life, transmitted by parents, is created by God and has an eternal destiny that belongs to Him."

Now, given that Dr. Irving is a member of this association she would have to make sure her findings were safely in agreement with the above statement. This, to my mind, puts her squarely in the pro-life camp and therefore biased.

To display a convincing balanced argument I'd like to see evidence from a pro-choice biased scientist or ideally a scientist who is actually impartial. Therefore I do not think it's safe to assume that she could be called a reputuable source.

well i hope we dont go down the religious route... but the quotes i have used have come from this guy and from looking at the site and seeing that he is extremely well respected and has a number of publications that its safe to say its a reputable source... but unfortunately it has no info on his religious beliefs... although from wot i have read of the site he has no connections to the catholic church regarding his beliefs etc etc

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by seamus
Yes it is, from a certain point of view. From another point of view it's a human individual. From yet another point of view, it's a bag of chemicals, no more significant than a lump of skin sheared from someone's thigh. There are multiple ways of looking at things.

no there isn't, if it wasn't a fertilized egg then there would be different ways of looking at it..... its not a bag of chemicals, its not a piece of skin and its not a parasite... it is a human being, this is fact

Originally posted by seamus
I haven't expressed an opinion on it either way. I'm asking you examine your own opinions. Are you believing these people because they're doctors? That's a fool's trust. For hundreds of years, some doctors have been the biggest barrier to the development of their own field ("The earth is flat", "You can't fly faster than the speed of sound"), while other doctors in the same field have directly opposed them. How do you know who's right? I'm simply suggesting that you examine the evidence for yourself, and build your own opinion. Don't take someone's word for it "because they studied for years and years". Everyone has an alterior motive. Plenty of pro-choice sided doctors are equally as guilty as their opposites of altering evidence to make it appear as if they're right.I have yet to see any evidence apat from "I'm a doctor, I say this is a human individual, therefore it must be". How does "It's a ball of cells, created from a sperm and an egg, and has the potential to be a human, therefore it must be a human individual" count as solid proof that it's human? It's just another opinion.

if ur so quick to examine my opinions and the opinions of this guy then instead of tellin me i'm wrong, please prove that i am wrong, or at least provide links to such scientists that dissaggree with me and this guy.. if u cant do that then dont post.

skittishkitten

Originally posted by Rock Climber

People have the right to tell me what to do with my body by the way already as they do have the right to tell you what to do with yours in certain cases.
It's unlawfull for me to use my body to kill another person If I hit someone with my fist and kill them I'll be tried for murder, I've used my body for that.
But then nobody should have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, so maybe I should be aquitted yes?

And where did you get that statistic from?
links please.

As I said my personal understanding, I don't have links and sites to refer you to, call it life experience, and I'm not a lawyer I can't site case and verse for you.

But let me pose some questions for you . SUPPOSE the law states - no abortions unless the father agrees. The pregnancy should be brought to full term.


Your wife/girlfriend is raped and because of that crime she becomes pregnant. The rapist / father finds out and starts screaming " MY CHILD , I WANT IT". She would be required to bear that child to term. You both would be constantly reminded of what this person did to her , not that you most likely ever forget anyhow, BUT you would hope to regain some semblance of your life after the rape. However you can't as she is left to incubate the rapist/fathers child for him. Once the child is born she would then be required to give this child to the rapist/father, that is horrifying in itself. You feel OK with this ?

Also what if this pregnancy ALSO endangers her life, that by following through with this pregnancy she would die , but the rapist/father is adamant that the pregnancy be brought to term. Therefore she must forfiet her life in order to produce the life that was forced upon her. She also should have no say in this ?

If she was pregnant with your child and was told by medical doctors that by attempting to carry the child to full term the she was endangering her life and also the unborn childs life. That in fact if they would both likely die during the pregnancy , and if she should by some slim chance make full term she would die during the delivery . Are you saying that you have the right to tell her she must forfeit her life in order to try to give your unborn child life. Shouldn't that be her decision? And would you be able to chose ? Would you be able to tell her that she must die ?

What if a child she carried was so horribly deformed that the chances of it living past birth or having even the smallest quality of life was minuscule if it did survive. You would force that trauma of carrying and birthing a deformed child on her ?

If you force a child to become a mother before she is ready , what service are you doing her ?

I agree that the "mother" should be counseled and given all the possibilities before the abortion takes place. But in the end it is her decision. If she can't be rid of it one way then most likely she will be rid of it another , some even going to vast extremes or even killing themselves to stop the unwanted pregnancy. Should they not have an option to suicide ?


But as I said ......that's my opinion.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by skittishkitten

Your wife/girlfriend is raped and because of that crime she becomes pregnant. The rapist / father finds out and starts screaming " MY CHILD , I WANT IT". She would be required to bear that child to term. You both would be constantly reminded of what this person did to her , not that you most likely ever forget anyhow, BUT you would hope to regain some semblance of your life after the rape. However you can't as she is left to incubate the rapist/fathers child for him. Once the child is born she would then be required to give this child to the rapist/father, that is horrifying in itself. You feel OK with this ?

I'd reckon, a convicted rapist in that case would have great difficulty getting custody.
If the child was put up for adoption, the case would be closed unless as an adult the child wanted to find out who it's mother is.
Or if the mother wanted to find out how the child was doing.
In the latter case it would be a positive sign that she is getting over the ordeal.
I would hope though that, the relationship would be strong enough in the first place, for the girlfriend to tell her boyfriend and if that was me, I would bring her to the police and provide a morning after pill as well as all the support possible in that horrible situation.

Also what if this pregnancy ALSO endangers her life, that by following through with this pregnancy she would die , but the rapist/father is adamant that the pregnancy be brought to term. Therefore she must forfiet her life in order to produce the life that was forced upon her. She also should have no say in this ?

Well assuming that the morning after pill hasn't worked and there are certain medical risks such as you mention associated with the pregnancy, I would authorise the doctors to do what ever necessary to protect the life of my wife or girlfriend.
If the result of that is a miscarriage, then that is an unfortunate accident, it's not an elective or deliberate abortion in my view.
Of course the Catholic Church might not like to deal with that , but then since when have they been able to deal with grey areas like that, and as I said earlier in this thread I am not one of them so their views are irrelevant to mine.

What if a child she carried was so horribly deformed that the chances of it living past birth or having even the smallest quality of life was minuscule if it did survive. You would force that trauma of carrying and birthing a deformed child on her ?

Define deformed for me and quality of life.
In essence no I wouldn't be in favour of the distruction of severly handicapped un born children.
But all along I've not been in favour of removing the mothers choice to do any of these things, if you read back through the thread
My reasoning in this discussion is to flesh out peoples positions on the subject and to see how or where they are coming from.

The impression I've got from your questions to me, so far is that the basis for your belief in abortion is that because some girls are raped, and some babies are severely handicapped, abortion should be available to all.
If that logic was applied to every decision in the world, we'd have a state of anarchy in my humble opinion.

I notice by the way that you have asked me questions which I've endeavoured to answer, but you completely sidestepped the question I posed for you-why was that?

seamus

I see, so instead of actually countering or discussing any of my arguments, you post the same as you have for the last 3 pages, and ask me not to post anymore. Interested in fair and progressive discussion I see...

Any road,

Originally posted by newband
no there isn't, if it wasn't a fertilized egg then there would be different ways of looking at it..... its not a bag of chemicals, its not a piece of skin and its not a parasite... it is a human being, this is fact

Yet again, you claim it's a fact, yet fail to provide any evidence. As I said, that link you've provided says (in a cut down language) - "Because the zygote/blastocyst/whatever is formed from the fusion of two gametes, therefore it is a human being."
Where is the proof, the pages of laboratory experiments, the single and unerring report that logically, and step-by-step, proves once and for all, that after the fusion of two gametes, the product is in fact a human individual, be it one cell, twelve cells or a million cells? Oh wait, there isn't one.

Just like there isn't one to prove otherwise. Bit of a pickle this. It's called a stalemate. Nobody can get an upper edge, because they have nothing else to bring to the table. No more moves to counteract the other's.

if ur so quick to examine my opinions and the opinions of this guy then instead of tellin me i'm wrong, please prove that i am wrong, or at least provide links to such scientists that dissaggree with me and this guy.. if u cant do that then dont post.

I haven't claimed that you're wrong, and have made no claims of any kind that require proving.
Unless you're talking about the word parasite

par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Ouch. Pretty conclusive there. In fact that would seem quite apt to describe the child throughout their gestation. So whether it's a human being or not, it's always going to be a parasite while inside the womb, just like it may be a human being for the entire time. Just come up with an apt description for what constitutes a human being. I'm quite happy that the above description nicely catches the essence of what a parasite is. But what is the essence of a human?

hu·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn)
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

No, doesn't really catch it, does it? After all, if a blastocyst was a member of my species, it would look similar to me, and especially, I would be able to reproduce with it (given that it's the right sex of course). It does have the number of chromosomes in common with me, but then so do plenty of other species. You may very well be right, and I'm happy to accept that. I'm wholly happy to accept that the above definition of human may be wrong, and in fact, I think it probably is.

There's no winner. You're neither right nor wrong.

skittishkitten

When I first posted , I was not posting in reply to anyone ...... just giving my opinion. For some reason you taken it that I was responding to you. From my standpoint your comparison of one person beating another to death does not evenly compare to a woman choosing to abort. Also it has been argued in this thread that the morning after pill does KILL the unborn fertilized egg , thereby killing the child ......

But since you ask to me answer your question ........

[Qoute] It's unlawfull for me to use my body to kill another person If I hit someone with my fist and kill them I'll be tried for murder, I've used my body for that.
But then nobody should have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, so maybe I should be aquitted yes? [/Qoute]

If that OTHER PERSON was to impose their body upon or within yours to have you carry , nurture and be in or on your body and put it through great stress until they expell themselves from you ...... then yes you have the right to terminate that event.

Horribly Deformed and Quality of life would be a organs/bones on the outside, unseperable twins , hereditary genetic desease that will have them in excruciating pain or dead within a few years . Babies that would never be able to enjoy life , where each breath , each movement is torture. Those that are not aware and never will be aware of their surroundings. I'm not a medical doctor I can't begin to tell you all the deformities that would qualify for an abortion. Not all can be caught early enough to attempt the morning after pill approach. Some only show up with amniocentesis or ultra sound.

You are also assuming that the rapist gets convicted. Are you aware how hard it can be to convict a person of rape, thus make him ineligible to claim the child. Then there is always his family who would also have "rights" via the father. Not all rape is reported , sometimes it's one persons word against anothers. Sometimes the woman bears to much shame or is to threatened by the rapist to take action against him. It would be nice if all girlfriends / wives had understanding boyfriends / husbands to support and comfort them. But they don't. Some are unattached / not involved. Some would find themselves in a broken relationship as their men would never be able to look at them the same again because of what happened.

Although I hold that abortion should be available , I did not say easy to obtain. Counciling and being made aware of other options would be required before such procedure would be allowed. I also said ...... " in the end it is her decision. If she can't be rid of it one way then most likely she will be rid of it another , some even going to vast extremes or even killing themselves to stop the unwanted pregnancy. "

And I say again ...... In the end it's her decision......

my personal opinion of course.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by seamus
Yet again, you claim it's a fact, yet fail to provide any evidence .Where is the proof, the pages of laboratory experiments, the single and unerring report that logically, and step-by-step, proves once and for all, that after the fusion of two gametes, the product is in fact a human individual, be it one cell, twelve cells or a million cells? Oh wait, there isn't one.

just because there isn't one on the net you assume there isn't one at all.. i have read many times on the net that this is all scientific fact, if u looked you would realise that, do u think everyone who has stated this is lying, if so, then why?

u should look up evidence in the dictionary

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

Originally posted by seamus
Just like there isn't one to prove otherwise. Bit of a pickle this. It's called a stalemate. Nobody can get an upper edge, because they have nothing else to bring to the table.

so far u have brought NOTHING to the table

Originally posted by seamus
par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

in this case i accept that u are right, i guess that does describe wot it is, but it is a human being none the less

definition of organism,

An individual form of life

Originally posted by seamus
Just come up with an apt description for what constitutes a human being. I'm quite happy that the above description nicely catches the essence of what a parasite is. But what is the essence of a human?.

how does the essence of a human have any relevance in this topic? we're not talking about wot characterizes a human being, we are talking about a right to life

Originally posted by seamus
There's no winner. You're neither right nor wrong.

i'm not trying to win anything,,, and are ALL these scientists wrong, not just in this matter but concerning EVERYTHING ever scientifically proven??

i also found this interesting article by a reporter in america which makes some very good points

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

just because there isn't one on the net you assume there isn't one at all.. i have read many times on the net that this is all scientific fact, if u looked you would realise that, do u think everyone who has stated this is lying, if so, then why?

u should look up evidence in the dictionary

if I got everyone on boards to post in different places on the net saying that they were NOT facts.. would that mean seamus's point would hold the same weight as yours?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Mordeth


if I got everyone on boards to post in different places on the net saying that they were NOT facts.. would that mean seamus's point would hold the same weight as yours?

is everyone on boards a scientist?? plus, given that only 36% of people believe that it is ok to abort NO MATTER wot, it is reasonable to assume that i am in the majority and that the majority of people aggree with me on the subject.. and also the majority of the COUNTRY believe that abortion is WRONG, need i go on??

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well if I say they are you'll believe me.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Mordeth
well if I say they are you'll believe me.

a truely excellent argument, congratulations mordeth;)

amp

Originally posted by newband
is everyone on boards a scientist?? plus, given that only 36% of people believe that it is ok to abort NO MATTER wot, it is reasonable to assume that i am in the majority and that the majority of people aggree with me on the subject.. and also the majority of the COUNTRY believe that abortion is WRONG, need i go on??

The current majority in that poll are those who believe that abortion is ok in certain circumstances. You're in that majority?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by skittishkitten
When I first posted , I was not posting in reply to anyone ...... just giving my opinion. For some reason you taken it that I was responding to you. From my standpoint your comparison of one person beating another to death does not evenly compare to a woman choosing to abort.

I was making the point that they would be using their body to do this, in answer to your assertion that we should be able to do what we like with our bodies.
I could be a suicide bomber for instance, the bomb might only partially go off, but I live, and I'd expect to be called to account for any harm I've done to others.
Rare I know, but the instances of deformity that you mention in your post are less rare but rare too none the less.
In answer to your specific question, my conscience wouldn't condone the killing of an unborn child, even if it had seven legs.

If that OTHER PERSON was to impose their body upon or within yours to have you carry , nurture and be in or on your body and put it through great stress until they expell themselves from you ...... then yes you have the right to terminate that event.

Again I wasn't speaking of rape in the instance you quote me from, and I don't presume to withdraw the choice to kill an unborn child that might come from it, I'm just saying to my mind it's wrong, it's a killing, and two wrongs never made a right.
As explained earlier thats assuming the morning after pill hasn't done it's job.

Also it has been argued in this thread that the morning after pill does KILL the unborn fertilized egg , thereby killing the child ......

Well if you read back through the thread, that sounds like Catholic Theology which I don't agree with.
How would one know within 48 hours if one has had an egg fertilised or not ( without an invasive procedure to check this ) so someone using it has no way of knowing that they are killing a baby by using it.
My conscience is clear on that one.

You are also assuming that the rapist gets convicted. Are you aware how hard it can be to convict a person of rape, thus make him ineligible to claim the child. Then there is always his family who would also have "rights" via the father.

Actually most rape cases that I've read do end up with a conviction.
I suppose it is possible that the family could adopt the kid, but unlikely as extenuating circumstances would be taken into account.

Sometimes the woman bears to much shame or is to threatened by the rapist to take action against him. It would be nice if all girlfriends / wives had understanding boyfriends / husbands to support and comfort them. But they don't. Some are unattached / not involved. Some would find themselves in a broken relationship as their men would never be able to look at them the same again because of what happened.

Initially, you asked the question, specifically of me, and I answered in that capacity.
what you are saying is a damning reflection on the men involved and they in my view in that case are as much responsible for the death of the unborn child as the mother.
Again she is entitled to do that, it's the easier option, it's right for her, in her opinion, but that doesn't make it right morally or ethically.
This goes back to my belief that no body should have the right to choose which foetus has the right to go on to adulthood and which does not.
In essence they are both the same, it's just the parent, takes on the supposedly God Given right or whatever to kill one and not the other.

Although I hold that abortion should be available , I did not say easy to obtain. Counciling and being made aware of other options would be required before such procedure would be allowed. I also said ...... " in the end it is her decision. If she can't be rid of it one way then most likely she will be rid of it another , some even going to vast extremes or even killing themselves to stop the unwanted pregnancy. "

Although I hold that abortion should be available , I did not say easy to obtain. Counciling and being made aware of other options would be required before such procedure would be allowed. I also said ...... " in the end it is her decision. If she can't be rid of it one way then most likely she will be rid of it another , some even going to vast extremes or even killing themselves to stop the unwanted pregnancy. "

Well I agree with the first part of your statement, but as regards the getting rid of it via suicide.
Anyone can pretend to be suicidal which is why I think it's dangerous to look at it immediately as a grounds for an abortion.

seamus

Originally posted by newband
just because there isn't one on the net you assume there isn't one at all.. i have read many times on the net that this is all scientific fact, if u looked you would realise that, do u think everyone who has stated this is lying, if so, then why?

There's a difference between lying and stating your opinion. I have no doubt that they believe what they are saying, but just because they call themselves scientists doesn't mean that they're infallible, or indeed that everything they claim to be facts, are indeed facts.

u should look up evidence in the dictionary

As you so kindly did the honour for me:
"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"
I have yet to see any of these things in this thread. Opinions are not evidence. Documentation is evidence. Laboratory test are evidence.

so far u have brought NOTHING to the table

I haven't been required to. I told you I haven't expressed an opinion either way. In fact, I'm not going to attempt to provide any evidence of when life starts, because it doesn't exist (the evidence that is).

how does the essence of a human have any relevance in this topic? we're not talking about wot characterizes a human being, we are talking about a right to life

The very core of the debate is "How do you define what is human, and when does a foetus/blastocyst/zygote become one?"
It's also where the stumbling block lies, in that everyone's definition will alter to suit their opinion.

i'm not trying to win anything,,, and are ALL these scientists wrong, not just in this matter but concerning EVERYTHING ever scientifically proven??

I never said they were always wrong. In fact I didn't even say they were wrong on this count. Some of the best scientists ever, made claims that have since been disproved or disregarded by modern science, but were gospel at the time. Einstein and Newton to name but two. Their other discoveries are still valid. No-one can be right all the time. My point is that they have provided no evidence of their 'facts'. What they have stated are theories. The onus is then on the scientist to confirm their theory, and return with the evidence, regardless of whether their theory is correct.
It's a bit like Einstein's general theory of relativity. I'm happy that indeed it may be right or it may be wrong, but until someone proves (or disproves) it, it cannot be presented as fact.

i also found this interesting article by a reporter in america which makes some very good points [/B]

It's a good read, if a little short. Doesn't really add much to the debate though.

androphobic

Originally posted by newband
is everyone on boards a scientist?? plus, given that only 36% of people believe that it is ok to abort NO MATTER wot, it is reasonable to assume that i am in the majority and that the majority of people aggree with me on the subject.. and also the majority of the COUNTRY believe that abortion is WRONG, need i go on??

Considering almost 77% of people have voted in favour of abortion, in some form or another, then eh.. no.. I think you're in the minority. The majority of people don't agree with you, newband.
And considering the way you are expressing your opinions, can we really blame them? But no, you don't need to go on any more.. in fact, please don't.

ixoy

Originally posted by androphobic
Considering almost 77% of people have voted in favour of abortion, in some form or another, then eh.. no.. I think you're in the minority. The majority of people don't agree with you, newband.

Actually, I thought newband was talking about elective abortion, in which case he might have majority on his side. This debate should really stick to the topic of elective abortion...

Originally posted by androphobic
Considering almost 77% of people have voted in favour of abortion,

In fairness,the Boards.ie constituency is not very representative of the whole country sometimes.
I've seen polls on the politics forum for instance that would leave Fianna Fáil without a single T.D.
Even Bertie would be gone

Thats far from being lilely to happen.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by amp
The current majority in that poll are those who believe that abortion is ok in certain circumstances. You're in that majority?

indeedio... i'm not against abortion in every situation, i am just against it when people use it as a contraceptive.. ie, irresponsability etc etc bla bla bla

seamus

Originally posted by Man
In fairness,the Boards.ie constituency is not very representative of the whole country sometimes.
I've seen polls on the politics forum for instance that would leave Fianna Fáil without a single T.D.
Even Bertie would be gone

Absolutely. Boards polls tend to only sample the younger demographic, even those you can't vote, so they're certainly not reliable enough to be commented on.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by seamus
There's a difference between lying and stating your opinion. I have no doubt that they believe what they are saying, but just because they call themselves scientists doesn't mean that they're infallible, or indeed that everything they claim to be facts, are indeed facts.

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"
I have yet to see any of these things in this thread. Opinions are not evidence. Documentation is evidence. Laboratory test are evidence

In fact, I'm not going to attempt to provide any evidence of when life starts, because it doesn't exist (the evidence that is).

I never said they were always wrong. In fact I didn't even say they were wrong on this count. Some of the best scientists ever, made claims that have since been disproved or disregarded by modern science, but were gospel at the time. Einstein and Newton to name but two. Their other discoveries are still valid. No-one can be right all the time. My point is that they have provided no evidence of their 'facts'. What they have stated are theories. The onus is then on the scientist to confirm their theory, and return with the evidence, regardless of whether their theory is correct.
It's a bit like Einstein's general theory of relativity. I'm happy that indeed it may be right or it may be wrong, but until someone proves (or disproves) it, it cannot be presented as fact.

einsteins thoery of relativity is exactly that, a theory... these people i am refferring to are not claiming that it is a thoery, they persist to say that it is fact, now if these scientists are lying by statin that their own opinions as fact then i am asking you, to please provide a link to such scientists that believe otherwise... maybe, just maybe, this IS fact and generally scienists beliefs are based on scientific fact, thats the whole point of being a scientist, now if it was just one scientist who was statin these things then i would accept that it may not be fact, but there are MULTIPLE scientists who believe wot has been quoted, and i honestly dont believe that all of these scientists are foggin their own opinions off as fact, it goes against the nature of being a scientist in the first place... just because we cant find the actuall documentation of the tests etc etc means nothin,,, even if we did have em, we probably wouldn't have a clue at wot it says anyway

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by seamus
Absolutely. Boards polls tend to only sample the younger demographic, even those you can't vote, so they're certainly not reliable enough to be commented on.

well as i said before, the majority of the country voted against abortion