Keep abortion out of Ireland

Sin City

muppeteer wrote: »

Research suggests that conscious capacity for pain is not present in a fetus before 23-30 weeks.
Life exists continually but I suspect you mean to ask when does a embryo/fetus become a human being/person.


Human qualities are fairly broadly defined as I see it, but I would generally say that human qualities are that we are conscious, sapient animals.

No, we should protect any human person who has the capability for suffering/happiness.
Would I see the killing of humans in Permanent Vegetative States as murder? No, as there is no person there to murder if the brain is already destroyed.
They have no conscious value of their own life but they are capable of suffering and of pleasure and so deserve protection from unnecessary suffering, including death.

But your forgetting the point
If left alone the fotes has every chance that all this will develop so it can still be classed as a murder, do you cut off a limb when its lacerated even though if left alone it will heal?

You say research suggests not research has been explicitly proven beyond a shadow of a doub which isnt very definitive

When exactly do we become conscious?
Look at Satre , he proposes its because we think that we are conscious that we exist, a newborn cannot think as abstract as that , so does that mean they can be put down because they are not conscious?

As for happiness, new borns arent capable of being happy, they just react to the situation. They have the ability to become happy but actually do not have any emotions

Sin City

For decades Dr. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, has incited outrage by advocating for infanticide in cases of extreme disability, since “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person,” because an infant is not yet self-aware (Leo, 1999). Grown animals, however, he does consider “self-aware,” leading him to conclude that “the life of a newborn baby is of less value . . . than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee (Leo, 1999).”


I think some new criteria for the right for life is needed

Or at least properly define consciouness

dj357

gimmebroadband wrote: »

At the end of our lives, we are judged by God's law, not man's law!

You are entitled to that belief, but it does not make it a fact. Nor does it entitle anyone to persecute or condemn anyone else through the law at the behest of that belief.

Sin City wrote: »

The fact that a fetus can develop consciousness and has a chance at becomming human then it can still be considered murder.

If this logic is valid, which it is not, then every single man on earth is guilty of negligent homicide to the tune of at least 20 million per day. Similarly, every ovulation a woman experiences that results in a period is another negligent homicide. Sperm have the potential to result in conscious human life, as does an egg, as does a blastocyst as does a fetus up to approx. 22 weeks where physical structures that allow transmission of nerve signals such as pain begin to form.

The responsibility of another human life is not a simple gift, it is, indeed, a responsibility and every person has the right to deny the burden of that responsibility before it becomes a person in it's own right. That is what we are talking about here, a woman's right to choose a) whether she wants to endure the process of pregnancy and b) whether she wants to endure the raising of a child. In the case of a) we have contraception and abortion if she chooses not to. In the case of b) we have adoption.

In theory our dividing line between a human and a responsibility we can deny should be sentience. The ability of an entity to become aware of it's own existence. In humans, however, this does not happen immediately after birth. In practice, it is not so simple. The abortion debate will rage back and forth over this dividing line for many years to come but in Ireland a woman does not even have the right to abort a simple cluster of cells never mind an organism which may or may not feel pain, based on who you listen to. Let's at the very least respect Irish women enough to realise that most woman who choose to have abortions are not aborting a near term fetus and chucking it into a f**king bin. Wake the f**k up.

Also, stop conflating the argument about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy with ethical quandaries regarding euthanasia and the disabled. It's a common tactic in the abortion discussion and it's both detrimental and time wasting.

Sin City

dj357 wrote: »

You are entitled to that belief, but it does not make it a fact. Nor does it entitle anyone to persecute or condemn anyone else through the law at the behest of that belief.




If this logic is valid, which it is not, then every single man on earth is guilty of negligent homicide to the tune of at least 20 million per day. Similarly, every ovulation a woman experiences that results in a period is another negligent homicide. Sperm have the potential to result in conscious human life, as does an egg, as does a blastocyst as does a fetus up to approx. 22 weeks where physical structures that allow transmission of nerve signals such as pain begin to form.

The responsibility of another human life is not a simple gift, it is, indeed, a responsibility and every person has the right to deny the burden of that responsibility before it becomes a person in it's own right. That is what we are talking about here, a woman's right to choose a) whether she wants to endure the process of pregnancy and b) whether she wants to endure the raising of a child. In the case of a) we have contraception and abortion if she chooses not to. In the case of b) we have adoption.

In theory our dividing line between a human and a responsibility we can deny should be sentience. The ability of an entity to become aware of it's own existence. In humans, however, this does not happen immediately after birth. In practice, it is not so simple. The abortion debate will rage back and forth over this dividing line for many years to come but in Ireland a woman does not even have the right to abort a simple cluster of cells never mind an organism which may or may not feel pain, based on who you listen to. Let's at the very least respect Irish women enough to realise that most woman who choose to have abortions are not aborting a near term fetus and chucking it into a f**king bin. Wake the f**k up.

Also, stop conflating the argument about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy with ethical quandaries regarding euthanasia and the disabled. It's a common tactic in the abortion discussion and it's both detrimental and time wasting.

First off, untill the sperm and the egg combine there is no chance of life so that scuppers your first argument

I understand that most women arent aborting full term foetuses and I am not trying to use shock tactics to back up my points

Lastly drawing up similar paralles is not detrimental or time wasting
Surely if the argument was that they have to be conscious to have a right to life then that factor should be universal

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7417/abortedbabyh.jpg[/URL]

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm sorry, but abortion is shocking - pictures say it better than words!

The only thing the above posts show is to confirm that you can't engage in the debate in any other manner than by trying to elicit emotional reactions from people in what is already an incredibly difficult debate.

Instead of using these shock tactics, or proclaiming that your god will judge all, how about trying to argue a point?

Just after reading dj357's post above mine and it sums up what I was about to say better than I could.

muppeteer

Sin City wrote: »

But your forgetting the point
If left alone the fotes has every chance that all this will develop so it can still be classed as a murder, do you cut off a limb when its lacerated even though if left alone it will heal?

The argument from potentiality is irrelevant as then you could class as murder those who use contraception. They intentionally prevent a potential person from coming into existence by preventing an egg and sperm coming together or they intentionally murder by preventing implantation. Can you see how argument from potential leads to silliness.

You say research suggests not research has been explicitly proven beyond a shadow of a doub which isnt very definitive

No research proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can always err on the side of caution and base our cut off points on the more conservative estimates of when the brain develops enough to feel pain.

When exactly do we become conscious?
Look at Satre , he proposes its because we think that we are conscious that we exist, a newborn cannot think as abstract as that , so does that mean they can be put down because they are not conscious?

Consciousness is ill defined so we go with our best information, that if the brain is non functional then consciousness is not present.

As for happiness, new borns arent capable of being happy, they just react to the situation. They have the ability to become happy but actually do not have any emotions

Depends on how you define happy. I would think basic instincts such as receiving milk would produce something akin to pleasure. Sure a baby might not gain pleasure from being able to think of it's future goals but it can at least experience pleasure. Why do you think they have no emotions?

dj357

Sin City wrote: »

Lastly drawing up similar paralles is not detrimental or time wasting
Surely if the argument was that they have to be conscious to have a right to life then that factor should be universal

Someone who has already been born and has a family and/or people who have committed to the responsibility of caring for them is not a similar parallel.

Andrewf20

Just a thought, does the bible say anything as to why God allows so many natural miscarriages/ abortions? I had a quick look in google but couldnt find anything.

prinz

Sin City wrote: »

Im against abortion but I believe being able to have a civilised rational discussion/debate without the need for shock tactics. Abortion is an emotive action and does not need these graphic images to be shown

I'd agree in so far as there is a time and a place. I disagree completely with the people with the stand showing these pictures outside the GPO in Dublin for example.

However in topics such as this between adults who are there to discuss the issue at hand then I think there definitely is a place for "shock tactics" if by shock tactics you mean images showing the end result of santised debating. Similarly I'd argue that politicians in favour of war should spend some time in the trenches with the frontline troops so to speak, and not thousands of miles away having "rational civilised debate" in a nice cosy office over tea and biscuits... so they get to see the real human impact of their decisions. It's for the same reason that the Allies used to round up German civilians after the liberation of concentration and death camps and march them though them... because while rational and civilised debate is one thing, seeing the actual human impact with your own eyes is something very different.

That said I also don't like these threads to descend into who can find the most stomach-churning picture. I can see both sides here but in general I think people should be prepared to see the outcomes of their decisions one way or the other. There's far too much white-washing of the truth in case people get put off their cucumber sandwiches.

Benny_Cake

I think that there problem with shock tactics such as that picture is that people won't read or listen to the point you are trying to put across as they are repelled by the imagery. That would be my reaction anyway. I also think that it's unethical to post an image such as that on a public forum.

Morbert

Just to fight with fire:



Also, nobody here (I would imagine) is claiming abortion should be legal in all trimesters. So if a shock image is posted, make sure it's relevant.

PDN

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that there problem with shock tactics such as that picture is that people won't read or listen to the point you are trying to put across as they are repelled by the imagery. That would be my reaction anyway. I also think that it's unethical to post an image such as that on a public forum.

I find the picture pretty abhorrent. But I'm puzzled as to why the pro-abortion side should get so outraged over a photograph of a 'clump of cells' in a bin.

gimmebroadband

Morbert wrote: »

Just to fight with fire:



Also, nobody here (I would imagine) is claiming abortion should be legal in all trimesters. So if a shock image is posted, make sure it's relevant.

When it comes to the human Soul, there is no difference between the image I posted and this one!

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

When it comes to the human Soul, there is no difference between the image I posted and this one!

So, still not going to engage in the debate?

gimmebroadband

CiaranMT wrote: »

So, still not going to engage in the debate?

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

Suit yourself.

MrPudding

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A relative of mine gave birth to a severly handicapped baby boy, who died 2 days after birth. She eventually found solice in that she was able to have him baptised and given a name, and a christian burial, as oppose to being thrown in a dumpster as garbage!

I am glad she found solice, which hopefully did not come at the cost of two days of suffering by the baby boy.

MrP

coffee_cake

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

where did jesus say anything on the subject at all?


as for shock images, i would have thought we're a bit beyond "it looks gross so it's wrong"
might as well go and protest open heart surgery because "it looks gross"

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I am glad she found solice, which hopefully did not come at the cost of two days of suffering by the baby boy.

MrP

What a piece of bullsh1t spin.

dj357

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus words are not up for debate as far as I'm concerned! There is NO justification for killing the unborn at any stage!

I'm afraid that's where you're wrong on both accounts. Jesus' words are always up for debate, most especially when he never, not once in the entire Bible, ever spoke about either abortion or the point at which a 'soul' enters a human body.

To add insult to injury you seem to be committing one of Jesus' most frowned upon sins yourself, that of self righteousness and holding one's self above others, in regard to this issue.

PDN wrote: »

I find the picture pretty abhorrent. But I'm puzzled as to why the pro-abortion side should get so outraged over a photograph of a 'clump of cells' in a bin.

The photo in question is quite clearly and demonstrably different to the one posted by Morbert. On the one hand, a group of dividing cells, on the other hand what appears to be a 3rd trimester baby in a garbage bin.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

as for shock images, i would have thought we're a bit beyond "it looks gross so it's wrong"
might as well go and protest open heart surgery because "it looks gross"

I expected more.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

I expected more.

Yeah, so did I

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, so did I

There is a marked difference between the two I'm afraid.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

There is a marked difference between the two I'm afraid.

Obviously there is a difference. But "it looks awful therefore it's wrong" is ridiculous in either case.

Keylem

dj357 wrote: »

I'm afraid that's where you're wrong on both accounts. Jesus' words are always up for debate, most especially when he never, not once in the entire Bible, ever spoke about either abortion or the point at which a 'soul' enters a human body.

Here is the Scriptures on Abortion.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

To add insult to injury you seem to be committing one of Jesus' most frowned upon sins yourself, that of self righteousness and holding one's self above others, in regard to this issue.

Aren't you being self-righteous condemning a Christian for following the teachings of Christ! :rolleyes:


The photo in question is quite clearly and demonstrably different to the one posted by Morbert. On the one hand, a group of dividing cells, on the other hand what appears to be a 3rd trimester baby in a garbage bin.

Another fine foto!

PDN

dj357 wrote: »

I'm afraid that's where you're wrong on both accounts. Jesus' words are always up for debate, most especially when he never, not once in the entire Bible, ever spoke about either abortion or the point at which a 'soul' enters a human body.

To add insult to injury you seem to be committing one of Jesus' most frowned upon sins yourself, that of self righteousness and holding one's self above others, in regard to this issue.



The photo in question is quite clearly and demonstrably different to the one posted by Morbert. On the one hand, a group of dividing cells, on the other hand what appears to be a 3rd trimester baby in a garbage bin.

I never mentioned any photo posted by Morbert.

We have had numerous posters in this Forum who, when abortion is discussed, come out with the 'bunch of cells' statement. No term mentioned - just abortion in general.

We also have posters who insist that a foetus is not a person, but is a parasite. In which case the photograph of an abortion should be no more disturbing than that of an appendix that has been removed.

CiaranMT

Keylem wrote: »

Another fine foto!

Aren't you a Christian Keylem?

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

Obviously there is a difference. But "it looks awful therefore it's wrong" is ridiculous in either case.

It is ridiculous, but I didn't see anyone make that argument

hattoncracker

gimmebroadband wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

That was the right choice for her, doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone and just because she made that decision doesn't mean that every woman should have to. I'm not attacking your relative, I really feel for what she went through, and being "thrown out in a dumpster as garbage" is not what happened to whitemocha, she was able to spend time with her baby, and brought the remains home and had a service. That remark is not very well researched.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

First of all, that's not an aborted baby, thats a child that was put in a dumpster after birth.

Second of all, you actually have no way of refuting my original argument, because it is the truth.

Thirdly, your post is disrespectful, deliberately emotive, and considering who it is in reply to, pointless. I've already had my abortion, I know the ugly truth of it, I know how horrible it is, but the worst part is persecution, and having to lock it all away because people like you see me as an incubator. As soon as sex is over, I have no say in my future, no control over my body, and no choice.

You, on the other hand, have not the slightest comprehension as to what youre posting about. You don't and will never understand until something so terrible backs you into a corner, and there is no other way out.

My womb, my body, my future, my conscience, my choice. I can live with my decision, so it doesn't matter whether you can live with it.

Abortion will be legal in Ireland. Maybe not today, not tomorrow but sometime.

PlainP

I was just going to ask the same thing...

How do you know that this is baby was aborted??

It looks more like a full or near full term baby which the mother simply left in the bin.

A horrible image to post on any forum and using it in the context that you did simply beggars belief...

You should be ashamed of yourself...