A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Reilly616

Deleted User wrote: »

A human sperm cell fuses with a human ovum in the process of fertilisation/conception. From this process, a new entity is formed containing DNA absolutely consistent with that of Homo sapiens sapiens.

How can the 'unborn' not be a human life?

Human stem cells also contain DNA "absolutely consistent with that of Homo sapiens sapiens". As do skin cells, liver cells etc. None of the above are to be considered as being "human life", just like a zygote is not a "human life".

The concept of "the unborn" in Irish law is a legal fallacy. One which the Supreme Court has done everything they can do to restrict.

fisgon

Deleted User wrote: »

. Either this new being is human or it is not.

It's always black and white, isn't it? No room for complexity. That is exactly the weakness of your position, biology and human life are incredibly complex, yet you want to reduce everything to an either/or. Then you end up in the ridiculous position of having to say that a one day old embryo with no brain, blood, nervous system, digestive system or even gender is as fully human as a 10 year old child or a middle aged woman, or a man in his 30s.

If I wasn't voting Labour before Quinn's article, I certainly am now.

cassi

cassi wrote: »

How exactly does it effect YOU, if a woman has an abortion? How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

Im not trying to get at you personally, Im just interested in hearing why people are so anti abortion and anti same sex marriage when, as I see it, it should really effect them at all!!

Cassie: although these questions weren't directed at me, I'd like to add my voice.

On abortion:
You've probably heard the speculative argument that goes something like, "This child could have been the scientist to find the cure for cancer". While that could be true, it's debatable. You might say, "Well, that's the nature of speculation." True. However, some things which we speculate are more likely to happen than others. It's more likely that the infant could have grown up to be a great son/daughter, brother/sister, friend, and so on. Of course, we can't say. Which leads me back to more certain issues and answering your question.

How does another woman's abortion affect me personally? Without a proper context, I don't know. But how it does (or does not) affect me isn't central to why I disagree with abortion. I disagree with it (completely) because it deliberately ends a human life.

On same-sex marriage:
As above, how it does or does not affect me isn't the key point. I believe that marriage = man+woman. With all due respect, 'same-sex marriage' doesn't exist in my view because it doesn't follow that particular formula.

PeterIanStaker

Retail Hell wrote: »

good enough reason to vote for labour then

Damn right. That Quinn is a reactionary catholofascist homophobic bigot and his Iona institute is a joke. I genuinely pity anyone who takes him seriously.

tomasocarthaigh

A quick solution to a complex problem - a multiple round referenda to sort abortion issue...

Round one:

When is abortion to be legal:

a) Never
b) When the mother is raped
c) If the baby is handicapped
d) On demand

Round one eliminates the least favourable...

Round two offers the three remaining, the least favourable eliminated, until round three is a straight one against one option...

To be regheld every 30 years, so each generation can make their own laws....

Any chance of anyone getting a poll going here for a virtual one on these lines?

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

On same-sex marriage:
As above, how it does or does not affect me isn't the key point. I believe that marriage = man+woman. With all due respect, 'same-sex marriage' doesn't exist in my view because it doesn't follow that particular formula.

Simple question: why? To be more specific, why is your view any more more relevant than someone else's? There are plenty of people out there who don't consider marriages outside their particular religion to be 'real' marriages, does that mean you can never be married?

brianthelion

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Damn right. That Quinn is a reactionary catholofascist homophobic bigot and his Iona institute is a joke. I genuinely pity anyone who takes him seriously.

I always find it amazing that the people in favour of abortion have already been born

Reilly616

brianthelion wrote: »

I always find it amazing that the people in favour of abortion have already been born

Really? You find that amazing? You find it amazing that the people capable of forming opinions, ie: the people who exist, have been born?

oceanclub

brianthelion wrote: »

I always find it amazing that the people in favour of abortion have already been born

That line wasn't clever when Reagan said it and it's still not clever.

P.

Dave!

A better line is, "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

Thank you George Carlin

mossyc123

Dave! wrote: »

A better line is, "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

Thank you George Carlin

Really?!

Sarah Palin is a nice bit of stuff.

Ivana Bacik is an absolute hound!

Teddy_Picker

Dave! wrote: »

A better line is, "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

Thank you George Carlin

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/george-carlin-conservative-hypocrisy-abor

George at his brilliant best, probably more applicable to the U.S. than here, but the sentiment is the same.

"If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're ****ed!"

desertcircus

If a fertilised embryo is a human life from the instant of conception, is Mary KateOlsen half a person?

tomasocarthaigh

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

each generation can make their own laws....

Could one infer from that that morality is a purely man-made thing? Surely, there are some things that are universally known to be wrong: murder and adultery, for instance. If we changed the law on those, would that make them 'right'?

PeterIanStaker

"Morality is herd instinct in the individual" - Nietzsche

oceanclub

oceanclub wrote: »

That line wasn't clever when Reagan said it and it's still not clever.

It doesn't matter whether a line is 'clever' or not. It just has to be truthful. Or have a significant element of truth in it. The latter possibly being the case here.

efb

Wow wasn't that fun read!

If me and my same sex partner promise never to have an abortion would the lovely Catholics allow us to have a civil marriage?

Reilly616

Reilly616 wrote: »

Human stem cells also contain DNA "absolutely consistent with that of Homo sapiens sapiens". As do skin cells, liver cells etc. None of the above are to be considered as being "human life"...

No qualms here!

...just like a zygote is not a "human life".

You'll have to bear with my poor terming of scientific matters here. The difference between a zygote and any other cell within or on a human body is that a zygote can divide and grow to ultimately look like a human being. Other cells can't do that. One cancerous cell can grow into a tumour, yes, but a tumour isn't a human being.

Also to be remembered is that the zygote is an entity separate from both parents. Yes, the placenta attached to the mother is needed for nourishment and the womb is the environment for growth. But, the zygote is an entity apart from the mother. Or the test tube, for that matter.

desertcircus

Deleted User wrote: »

How can the 'unborn' not be a human life?[/SIZE]

I don't get this. For several days after the moment of conception, the embryo can split in two or more parts, and each of those parts can develop into a full human life. The embryo cannot be a human life as long as it remains a possibility that it will eventually become more than one human life. Whatever makes us human, whatever it is that defines us as individuals, is not and can not be present at the moment of conception. It's a literal impossibility; if twins can occur, then either identical monozygotic siblings are only fractions of a human, or else the moment of becoming a human doesn't occur at conception.

desertcircus

desertcircus wrote: »

I don't get this. For several days after the moment of conception, the embryo can split in two or more parts, and each of those parts can develop into a full human life. The embryo cannot be a human life as long as it remains a possibility that it will eventually become more than one human life.

I don't know enough about the science behind monozygotic embryos to talk about it much. As far as life is concerned, it doesn't matter whether there will identical twins (or triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets...aaaah!!) from a single zygote as the zygote is already a living entity.

As for your Mary-Kate Olsen puzzle...well, it made me smile! :pac:

desertcircus

But the question remains: how can a zygote be equivalent to one human life when we know for a fact that it could yet split and subsequently form multiple lives? A zygote is not the same as a person and cannot be the same as a person, so all we can say with certainty is that a human life absolutely, definitely does NOT begin at conception.

fisgon

desertcircus wrote: »

But the question remains: how can a zygote be equivalent to one human life when we know for a fact that it could yet split and subsequently form multiple lives? A zygote is not the same as a person and cannot be the same as a person, so all we can say with certainty is that a human life absolutely, definitely does NOT begin at conception.

Agree. In fact it doesn't even have a gender, yet is apparently a fully human being.

There is also the fact that the anti abortion poster here is apparently arguing on the basis of science, but this is disingenuous, science has nothing to do with 99% of anti abortion opinions. It's about religion, and what their religion tells them they are required to believe. The catholic doctrine on this states that the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception, this is what makes it human. Of course there isn't a scrap of evidence for such a claim, but that is the fundamental basis of all anti-abortion beliefs. The fact that the zygote can still split in the first few days of its existence shows how nonsensical this idea of ensoulment at the moment of conception is.

Reilly616

Deleted User wrote: »

Could one infer from that that morality is a purely man-made thing? Surely, there are some things that are universally known to be wrong: murder and adultery, for instance. If we changed the law on those, would that make them 'right'?

Well, yes, morality is just a human construct. As for your example; while every culture denounced the murder of its in-group, adultery is in no way universally seen as wrong. What is wrong with a married couple having sexual relations with others outside of the marriage if it isn't done deceitfully? That's still adultery, but it is in no way "wrong".

Reilly616

desertcircus wrote: »

I don't get this. For several days after the moment of conception, the embryo can split in two or more parts, and each of those parts can develop into a full human life. The embryo cannot be a human life as long as it remains a possibility that it will eventually become more than one human life. Whatever makes us human, whatever it is that defines us as individuals, is not and can not be present at the moment of conception. It's a literal impossibility; if twins can occur, then either identical monozygotic siblings are only fractions of a human, or else the moment of becoming a human doesn't occur at conception.

Nahbios, the above post serves as adequate response to your comment on zygotes to my post. There are other points of course, but I'll only go on if needs be.

fisgon

fisgon wrote: »

Agree. In fact it doesn't even have a gender, yet is apparently a fully human being.

The sex isn't identifiable, no, but it is already determined at the moment of fertilisation. The sperm carries either an X or Y chromosone. If an X-carrying sperm cell fertilises the ovum, it's a female zygote. If it's a Y-carrying sperm cell, it's a male zygote.
- [source] You'll need to scroll down the page to section 2.4. (Sex Determination)[FONT=Arial,Bold][/FONT].

fisgon wrote: »

There is also the fact that the anti abortion poster here is apparently arguing on the basis of science, but this is disingenuous, science has nothing to do with 99% of anti abortion opinions. It's about religion, and what their religion tells them they are required to believe.

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with religion for some...here and here.

As for whether or not human life begins at conception, there are a significant number of credible scientific sources that affirm that it does.

Reilly616

Reilly616 wrote: »

every culture denounced the murder of its in-group

We're agreed on this though, right? And what about fraud? What certain people have been doing at the banks? Is that neither right nor wrong?

Freedom to make our own laws also comes with the responsibility not to trample on those who are weaker in society. Unless you're very much into Nietzsche?

By the way, sincere thanks to everyone for being civil on this issue.

BOZG

In Britain, abortion is permitted where a woman's life or health is at risk. Health includes mental health.

Definitely my favourite line from that article. "Them pro-choice bastards are trying to make us think that mental health is important!"

MalteseBarry

We already have abortion in Ireland. It just takes place in the UK.

Reilly616

Deleted User wrote: »

We're agreed on this though, right? And what about fraud? What certain people have been doing at the banks? Is that neither right nor wrong?

No, it's not inherently "wrong". One human defrauding another human does not in anyway "upset the balance of the universe", or however you'd like to term it. It is just seen by humans as unfair, and can be reasoned as such. Though it is seen by almost everyone as wrong (and is a step away from what we were discussing, ie: a changing moral zeitgeist), outside of the human construction of right and wrong, fair and unfair, there is no inherent wrongness to such an act. Simply put, we're not important enough for our actions to matter in the universal sense, just the communal sense.

EDIT: This is getting rather off topic, but I'd be happy to continue this discussion by "private messages" if you feel like it.