Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Options
1…5455575960…65

Comments

  • Options
    #1682
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Their offer is really the only honest anti-abortion statement I've ever heard.

    So, anyone else who says, "I have a genuine moral problem with the idea of killing unborn children" is being dishonest?

    These silly kinds of remarks, on both sides of the debate, make me despair of any reasonable discussion.


  • Options
    #1683
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    PDN wrote: »
    So, anyone else who says, "I have a genuine moral problem with the idea of killing unborn children" is being dishonest?

    I'd certainly have more respect for someone who'll back their moral qualms with loving action. Morals are a tasty dish; action is a hard road.


  • Options
    #1684
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    I'd certainly have more respect for someone who'll back their moral qualms with loving action. Morals are a tasty dish; action is a hard road.

    Yet you don't apply that philosophy to any other moral issue, do you?

    For example, is it dishonest to see killing gypsies as immoral unless you promise to personally care for every gypsy who needs a home?


  • Options
    #1685
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    It is pretty factual that the when the embryo is formed that a life has begun. Growth is exhibited, and what is dead cannot grow.

    As for marienbad saying why is it a human life. That's rather simple. It's formed of human biological material, a sperm and an ova.

    As for others who may say, isn't that similar to a tumour? - No, it's not, because a tumour does not develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and finally death.

    The pro-choice argument can't really argue against that the embryo / foetus is a human life. In fact I think it's quite disingenuous not to acknowledge that.

    I don't think the pro-choice argument is saying it is'nt human philologos ,and you know that, and you can say the above with all sincerity but a substantial body of opinion disagrees with you and believes a fetus is not a human being and hold that view with equal conviction.

    And we can go round the houses all night about tumours, chickens and eggs and acorns and oak trees and hair and dandruff etc but those opposing views will not change.

    So it all comes down to should one side impose their views on the other by enshrining that view into law.

    And by the way all this campaigning has not prevented one abortion happening in Ireland as it was illegal already and and the constant discusssion has made it just a bit more acceptable to each succeeding generation and making its introduction inevitable.


  • Options
    #1686
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    So it all comes down to should one side impose their views on the other by enshrining that view into law.

    Which pretty well describes every law, doesn't it.

    For example, laws against theft and murder are where those who are against stealing and murdering imposing their views on those who want to steal and murder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1687
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Elysian wrote: »
    None of those qoutes appear to say that a fertlized egg or a zygote are human beings, more that they are part of the development process of a human being.

    Actually, they do. That they do not appear to you to say that is not something I can help you with.

    Suffice to say that even professional pro-choice proponents no longer argue the case. For the benefit and edification of the amateurs I see no reason not to keep reminding those who persist in ignorance of the facts.

    If you still want to disagree then please feel free to rebut with supporting scientific evidence for your position.
    Elysian wrote: »
    An acorn is not an oak tree.

    Neither is an apple an orange, but if an oak tree does not start with an acorn where does it start?


  • Options
    #1688
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Which pretty well describes every law, doesn't it.

    For example, laws against theft and murder are where those who are against stealing and murdering imposing their views on those who want to steal and murder.

    The is a pointless tangent PDN , I am not interested in a load of cases where there is virtually 100% agreement on what is best for society. The is not the concensus on this issue.

    That is even before we get to the issue of personal privacy.

    Would you make illegal contraception/the morning after/ adultery etc ?

    Some or all of those are or were illegal.


  • Options
    #1689
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    The is a pointless tangent PDN ,

    It is not pointless. It is very pointed in that it skewers your argument.
    I am not interested in a load of cases where there is virtually 100% agreement on what is best for society.
    Of course you aren't - because to do so would be to admit your argument is illogical.
    The is not the concensus on this issue.
    So it's Ok to force your opinion on others legally if you are part of a big enough majority? Is that it?
    That is even before we get to the issue of personal privacy.
    Probably because that issue has nothing to do with it.
    Would you make illegal contraception/the morning after/ adultery etc ?
    No.
    Some or all of those are or were illegal.
    Lots of things were illegal. But none of that has anything to do with your poor logic or my rebuttal of it.


  • Options
    #1690
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    It is not pointless. It is very pointed in that it skewers your argument.


    Of course you aren't - because to do so would be to admit your argument is illogical.

    So it's Ok to force your opinion on others legally if you are part of a big enough majority? Is that it?


    Probably because that issue has nothing to do with it.


    No.


    Lots of things were illegal. But none of that has anything to do with your poor logic or my rebuttal of it.


    It skewers nothing PDN, the stance you are taking can be used in defence of Sharia Law for instance . Imposing one sides view on another side based on their own personals beliefs .

    We have already been down that road with contraception/ censorship/ adoption/education are dictated by what is best for a particular religious view , and most definitely not what was best for the individual and with disastrous consequences .

    If you want to go the logical/illogical road then why are you not up for making the morning after/contraceptives illegal ? Why just abortion ?

    As for trying to impose my opinions on others, talk about the kettle calling the pot black- that is just laughable - I think you will fine that pro choice means leaving it up to the individual.


  • Options
    #1691
    Elysian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭Elysian


    Festus wrote: »
    Actually, they do. That they do not appear to you to say that is not something I can help you with.

    Well then maybe you can show me where in your qoutes it says it is a human being as opposed to being just human. There is a difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1692
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    It skewers nothing PDN, the stance you are taking can be used in defence of Sharia Law for instance .

    No, it can't (or not by anyone who isn't an idiot, anyway). My stance is simply pointing out that it is not necessarily wrong for a law to reflect someone's standards of right or wrong.


  • Options
    #1693
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    philologos wrote: »
    It is pretty factual that the when the embryo is formed that a life has begun. Growth is exhibited, and what is dead cannot grow.

    As for marienbad saying why is it a human life. That's rather simple. It's formed of human biological material, a sperm and an ova.

    As for others who may say, isn't that similar to a tumour? - No, it's not, because a tumour does not develop towards birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and finally death.

    The pro-choice argument can't really argue against that the embryo / foetus is a human life. In fact I think it's quite disingenuous not to acknowledge that.

    Yes we can, we can argue it quite confidently. In fact, you made our exact point. What pro-choice advocates look for in a human being is birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and death. I don't care in the slightest what biological material I or my family, or anyone, is made of. If someone went to the doctor and discovered they were made of skittles, it would not change their rights in the slightest.


  • Options
    #1694
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    No, it can't (or not by anyone who isn't an idiot, anyway). My stance is simply pointing out that it is not necessarily wrong for a law to reflect someone's standards of right or wrong.

    It dos'nt take long to being out the rudeness in you does it.

    So I take you have no problem the wearing Burka or hijab being mandatory in certain middle eastern countries ?

    And I take it you had no problem with contraception being illegal in this country.

    Now I know you agree with none the the above so your statement is so full of caveats as to make it meaningless.

    Care to answer my points on those other issues ,adoption/education where one set of views were priviledged over others in areas that had nothing to do with the good of society ?


  • Options
    #1695
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Elysian wrote: »
    Well then maybe you can show me where in your qoutes it says it is a human being as opposed to being just human. There is a difference.

    If you can't read I can't help you.

    But if it is simply a case of laziness...

    "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, orprimordium, of a human being."
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

    "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
    [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

    "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

    "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

    or perhaps you are refering the grammatical use of the terms where the human in human being qualifies and describes the being as being human and is therefore an adjective whereas the term human is a noun that refers to and is frequently used in place of human being.


  • Options
    #1696
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    It dos'nt take long to being out the rudeness in you does it.
    I've not been rude to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that you were using an illogical argument.
    So I take you have no problem the wearing Burka or hijab being mandatory in certain middle eastern countries ?

    And I take it you had no problem with contraception being illegal in this country.

    Now I know you agree with none the the above so your statement is so full of caveats as to make it meaningless.

    Nonsense, I would be opposed to those laws because they were bad laws, not simply because they are examples of some people imposing their standards of right and wrong on others.

    You could equally refer to laws against raping seven year olds, murdering gypsies, or forcing children to clean chimneys. These are also examples of people imposing their standards of right and wrong on others.

    My position is a reasonable one - namely that a law is not necessarily bad just because it involves one set of people legally forbidding something they consider to be wrong.
    Care to answer my points on those other issues ,adoption/education where one set of views were priviledged over others in areas that had nothing to do with the good of society ?
    Why should I, since they don't invalidate my position, nor do they make your original argument sensible? I'll ignore such irrelevant 'points' just as I don't feel the need to respond every time a dog barks.


  • Options
    #1697
    Elysian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭Elysian


    Festus wrote: »
    or perhaps you are refering the grammatical use of the terms where the human in human being qualifies and describes the being as being human and is therefore an adjective whereas the term human is a noun that refers to and is frequently used in place of human being.

    What I'm talking about your seeming confusiion of the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," by giving them the same meaning and stating that a fertilized egg being a human being is an objective scientific fact. It's not. Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on when a human being becomes a human being. A fertilized egg, just like a strand of my hair, or a cell of my skin is definitely human, but it takes more than just being human to be a human being.

    You think a fertilized egg is a human being, I don't. Neither of us can 100% prove our positions but at least I can admit that. All I do know for certain is that Women are indisputable human beings with rights so until the issue can be proved one way or the other I'm happy to give them the choice up to a certain point.

    Festus wrote: »
    If you can't read I can't help you.

    But if it is simply a case of laziness...

    And thats me done. I understand abortion is a heated topic for a lot of people but at least they can maintain their civilty. Your posts make you look like a condesending, insulting, intellectually dishonest and at times a downright offensive person. It's people like you that made me lose my faith and with that I'm leaving this debate.


  • Options
    #1698
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't think the pro-choice argument is saying it is'nt human philologos ,and you know that, and you can say the above with all sincerity but a substantial body of opinion disagrees with you and believes a fetus is not a human being and hold that view with equal conviction.

    I know that, but I also know that is false. I know it is disingenuous to say that a life formed of human biological material is anything but human.
    marienbad wrote: »
    So it all comes down to should one side impose their views on the other by enshrining that view into law.

    Law should favour biological reality over opinion.


  • Options
    #1699
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Elysian wrote: »
    What I'm talking about your seeming confusiion of the adjective "human" and the noun "human being,"

    human is a noun. has been for a long time.
    Elysian wrote: »
    by giving them the same meaning and stating that a fertilized egg being a human being is an objective scientific fact. It's not. Biology, medicine,

    present your evidence to the contrary. Science, including medical science and biology, states that the life of all humans, human beings the lot of them begins at fertilization. It is a fact.
    If you disagree you must state when it does start, and, as I have done, present something in support.


    Elysian wrote: »
    law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on when a human being becomes a human being.

    There are some theologies that do state when a human comes in to existence and agree with the scientific and medical facts.
    law and philosophy are not scientific and I am not here for a legal or philosophical debate. If I were I would be quite happy to declare that those who would declare the weakest and most vulnerable and most in need of our protection of our human race unfit to be called human or human beings, are themselves not human by their own definitions. But my position requires that I respect all human life, even yours.

    Elysian wrote: »
    A fertilized egg, just like a strand of my hair, or a cell of my skin is definitely human, but it takes more than just being human to be a human being.

    actually a fertilized egg is not like a strand of your hair as your hair is not a cell: it is just keratin, the product of actions within a hair follical, and maybe some sebum, and possibly a bit of product.
    Nor is a fertilized egg like a cell of your skin. Your skin cell is a part of a human being but it is not a human being. Put it in to a uterus and it would disintegrate unlike a fertilized egg which would grow.
    Elysian wrote: »
    You think a fertilized egg is a human being, I don't. Neither of us can 100% prove our positions but at least I can admit that.

    Actually, I know a fertilized egg is a human being. I know it as a scientific fact. My position has already been proven 100%. Yours has not, nor will it be.
    Elysian wrote: »
    All I do know for certain is that Women are indisputable human beings with rights so until the issue can be proved one way or the other I'm happy to give them the choice up to a certain point.

    up to a certain point? are you saying you are prepared to impose limits on the rights of another human being? Why is that not a surprise.
    I have no problem with women or any other humans having rights. My problem is when people, like you, arbitrarily decide that it is a right to kill another human being. That is not a right. It is a wrong.

    Elysian wrote: »
    And thats me done. I understand abortion is a heated topic for a lot of people but at least they can maintain their civilty. Your posts make you look like a condesending, insulting, intellectually dishonest and at times a downright offensive person. It's people like you that made me lose my faith and with that I'm leaving this debate.

    If what you say is true then you should have no problem pulling each and every one of the arguments apart, even or especially the scientific, as intellectually dishonesty is essentially about propagating a lie one has convinced oneself of.
    If what you say is true I should also have a collection of yellow cards and infraction notices as I understand that being insulting and offensive is something the moderators of this forum take a dim view of.

    I have not presented any lies, nor do I have any yellow cards or infractions to date from this particular interlude so either you are wrong or the moderators are being biased in my favour. Given my previous history with the moderators here the latter is unlikely.

    What we are left with then is the conclusion that what you say is not true, though you may not agree 100%


  • Options
    #1700
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    I've not been rude to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that you were using an illogical argument.



    Nonsense, I would be opposed to those laws because they were bad laws, not simply because they are examples of some people imposing their standards of right and wrong on others.

    You could equally refer to laws against raping seven year olds, murdering gypsies, or forcing children to clean chimneys. These are also examples of people imposing their standards of right and wrong on others.

    My position is a reasonable one - namely that a law is not necessarily bad just because it involves one set of people legally forbidding something they consider to be wrong.

    Why should I, since they don't invalidate my position, nor do they make your original argument sensible? I'll ignore such irrelevant 'points' just as I don't feel the need to respond every time a dog barks.

    Just more unrelated red herrings ( your forte I realize at this stage ) and none of it related to my initial point .


  • Options
    #1701
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Just more unrelated red herrings ( your forte I realize at this stage ) and none of it related to my initial point .

    Not at all. You made a poor argument, and I have pointed that out.

    You don't like it, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

    We've been here before.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1702
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    I know that, but I also know that is false. I know it is disingenuous to say that a life formed of human biological material is anything but human.



    Law should favour biological reality over opinion.

    But this just goes round and round in cirles

    Of course it is human philologos , I don't think anyone disputes that . The issue is when does personhood or whatever you wish to call it begin.

    So can I ask you a question ?

    Do you accept that a substantial number of people hold a contrary view to yours and they do so in good faith ?


  • Options
    #1703
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Not at all. You made a poor argument, and I have pointed that out.

    You don't like it, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

    We've been here before.

    I might if I thought you had any credibility :)


  • Options
    #1704
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    I see that Ivana bachick is getting annoyed with the pro-life campaign....


    So much for being " pro choice " i thought they supported the right for choice... Yet when someone shows the other side of the choice..they get annoyed...


  • Options
    #1705
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    But this just goes round and round in cirles

    Of course it is human philologos , I don't think anyone disputes that . The issue is when does personhood or whatever you wish to call it begin.

    So can I ask you a question ?

    Do you accept that a substantial number of people hold a contrary view to yours and they do so in good faith ?

    The question is why does it go around and around in circles?

    The problem is that when your views disagree with what is biologically true, I don't think the views can win.


  • Options
    #1706
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    The question is why does it go around and around in circles?

    The problem is that when your views disagree with what is biologically true, I don't think the views can win.

    But philologos that is just not the issue. I am not asking you to change your view or to stop campaiging for your view or to agree with that other view .

    I am just asking do you accept that the other view exists and is sincerely held ?

    And by the way as I have said on this thread before I have sincere doubts on abortion and am probably closer to your view on it than not. But I just don't see that as the crux of the matter.


  • Options
    #1707
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    But philologos that is just not the issue. I am not asking you to change your view or to stop campaiging for your view or to agree with that other view .

    I am just asking do you accept that the other view exists and is sincerely held ?

    And by the way as I have said on this thread before I have sincere doubts on abortion and am probably closer to your view on it than not. But I just don't see that as the crux of the matter.

    It is biologically factual that the embryo onwards is a human life. This is stronger than opinion.

    I accept that the other view exists, but it's manifestly wrong. There's no good justification for claiming that a human life is not formed in the womb at conception. I'd rather if pro-choice people were honest and said that they are fine killing a life if it is the mothers choice.


  • Options
    #1708
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    There's a book called Spiritual Midwifery - a joyous celebration of childbirth, published by the midwives of The Farm, a commune in Tennessee that shared its safe and family-friendly childbirth services with anyone who wanted them. The Farm had - and I assume still has - a far better rate of safety for mothers and babies than the official US midwifery services.
    The first edition of Spiritual Midwifery had an extraordinary offer at the end. It went something like: "If you're going to have an abortion, don't. Come to us and have the kid, and leave it with us as long as you have to. You can have it back any time."
    Later editions don't have this. The reason is that The Farm was swamped with babies. The communards live/d at a rate far below the official US poverty level, but lived well, happily, intelligently and generously - but even they were not able to take in, love and raise the many babies left with them.
    Their offer is really the only honest anti-abortion statement I've ever heard.

    There are many couples in Ireland who have to go abroad to adopt babies. I don't there would be a problem in getting homes for babies whose mothers/fathers feel they cannot keep them for whatever reason.


  • Options
    #1709
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    It is biologically factual that the embryo onwards is a human life. This is stronger than opinion.

    I accept that the other view exists, but it's manifestly wrong. There's no good justification for claiming that a human life is not formed in the womb at conception. I'd rather if pro-choice people were honest and said that they are fine killing a life if it is the mothers choice.


    But you do accept that they believe it is not a human person though and they do so in all sincerity , no matter how mistaken they may be ?


  • Options
    #1710
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    It is biologically factual that the embryo onwards is a human life. This is stronger than opinion.

    On this particular point, I don't think discussions about the dictionary definitions of life/human/being are productive. I'm completely happy to call a small bundle of cells constituting a human embryo "life", "human life" or even a "human being", depending on the phrases currently being used in the debate. Similarly, terms like child/baby/embryo/fetus can be used somewhat interchangeably.

    The core of the matter is not linguistic, it's conceptual. A small bundle of human cells can be called "life" but what matters is the meaning that is ascribed that that "life". And I don't want to get into semantics about what "meaning" means. I'd hope that what I mean is clear.

    The application of "meaning" to anything is entirely subjective and people on either side can both have clear and rational reasons for forming their opinion.

    Pro-lifers may believe that, from conception, the characteristic of potential, the sanctity of any future life, adds "meaning" to that bundle of cells. Pro-choicers may argue that life cannot have "meaning" without biological sentience, without brain function, without personality, whatever.

    Whatever terms either side choose to use during the debate should not be important, as long as this concept is clear (which I believe it is). You do not "win", nor are you more "right" by using a textbook definition of "life"; opinions aren't formed by such definitions.

    I do not believe a life, a human being, a bundle of cells, has significant "meaning", certainly not before sentience. That is my opinion, one I have considered extensively and one I think has solid foundations in biology. You disagree. Fine, you have equally strong reasons which are grounded in your own biological and philosophical understanding. But trying to argue semantics gets neither of us anywhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1711
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    doctoremma wrote: »
    The core of the matter is not linguistic, it's conceptual. A small bundle of human cells can be called "life" but what matters is the meaning that is ascribed that that "life". And I don't want to get into semantics about what "meaning" means. I'd hope that what I mean is clear.

    The application of "meaning" to anything is entirely subjective and people on either side can both have clear and rational reasons for forming their opinion.

    Pro-lifers may believe that, from conception, the characteristic of potential, the sanctity of any future life, adds "meaning" to that bundle of cells. Pro-choicers may argue that life cannot have "meaning" without biological sentience, without brain function, without personality, whatever.

    This is the point that I keep trying to make here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement