Baby lives 45 minutes after legal abortion in UK

Millicent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As implantation only takes place post-conception then your own quoted article is also describing preventing pregnancy, post-conception.

Fair enough. I also understand his position on condoms vs. the pill, even if I don't agree.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

drkpower: I'm not reluctant at all. I've told you what I think. The real world, has largely rejected what is right in favour of what is wrong in respect to this issue and in many others. The task is largely a grass roots one - standing up for what is right, and encouraging others who see it to do the same. That applies to all issues and not just this one.

Do you believe abortion should be legal (in Ireland, the UK or any other country)?

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

The real world, has largely rejected what is right in favour of what is wrong in respect to this issue and in many others. The task is largely a grass roots one - standing up for what is right, and encouraging others who see it to do the same. That applies to all issues and not just this one.

Equally, I could argue the world has largely accepted what is right - and you stand up with a minority for what is wrong - but as the whole right/wrong argument is completely subjective, it seems rather pointless to claim to have some grandiose ethical trumping of one side over another.

philologos

Let's quote my previous post:

I've answered you already drkpower. In an ideal world as far as I see it shouldn't be legal if it causes the death of unborn children in certain contexts. It is legal only as a result of what people have decided concerning sexual ethics.

I've answered this already. As an ideal, I wouldn't be supportive of abortifacients being available at all. I'm pro-contraception as a means of preventing conception, but when it comes to destroying life, I'm not a fan of that.

I've been quite clear. It shouldn't be legal, but the reality is that it is in many countries and probably will be in Ireland, and it will be until people realise that the real issue concerning it is being swept under the carpet. I regard it as a human injustice of the highest order.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I've been quite clear. It shouldn't be legal

Ok, so your view is that the oral contraceptive pill should be illegal.

Do you believe that those who use should be criminalised in the same way in which those who procure an abortion, or kill a child, should be criminalised?

philologos

Read my posts drkpower. That's all you need to do

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Read my posts drkpower. That's all you need to do

I'd like you to answer a straightforward question in an honest manner:

Ok, so your view is that the oral contraceptive pill should be illegal.

Do you believe that those who use should be criminalised in the same way in which those who procure an abortion, or kill a child, should be criminalised?

Stark

philologos wrote: »

It's nothing to do with cells either. Simply put, I was the embryo, and so were you when we were much younger.

I was also a sperm and an ovum. Just because they were separate entities makes them no less valid than a zygote/embryo that can itself split into multiple entities. You can't argue that they have a lesser role in the process of human life.

catthinkin wrote: »

Cells, are not biological material formed of human sperm and ova that grow and develop from that point ultimately to death as we all do.

That's where you're wrong. The cells in your body are dividing and multiplying as we speak and they all came from the same source. Barring a few switches to control their behaviour, there's little difference between them and the zygote they came from. "Human life" as in the conciousness, thoughts and feelings that differentiate us from plants and bacteria is an emergent property that comes about after your central nervous system forms. It's not something that can be contained within one zygote or even within an embryo that hasn't begun the process of cell differentiation.

There are plenty of embryos in frozen storage at the moment created through IVF processes and the like. Should we find women and force them to have them implanted so they can realise their potential as human life? Why should we force them to take something that simply contains the DNA for forming a human and force them to undergo the process of growing a human from that DNA? We've moved on from the dark days when a woman's duty in life was to give life to as many offspring as possible regardless of whether she was in a position to support them. The decision to take DNA from a male and female partner, combine them and have them implanted into a woman's uterus to begin a process of becoming human life is something that should only happen with a woman's full consent.

catthinkin

Stark wrote: »

[QUOTE=philologos;77374607

catthinkin wrote: »

Cells, are not biological material formed of human sperm and ova that grow and develop from that point ultimately to death as we all do.

That's where you're wrong. The cells in your body are dividing and multiplying as we speak and they all came from the same source. Barring a few switches to control their behaviour, there's little difference between them and the zygote they came from. "Human life" as in the conciousness, thoughts and feelings that differentiate us from plants and bacteria is an emergent property that comes about after your central nervous system forms. It's not something that can be contained within one zygote or even within an embryo that hasn't begun the process of cell differentiation.

There are plenty of embryos in frozen storage at the moment created through IVF processes and the like. Should we find women and force them to have them implanted so they can realise their potential as human life? Why should we force them to take something that simply contains the DNA for forming a human and force them to undergo the process of growing a human from that DNA? We've moved on from the dark days when a woman's duty in life was to give life to as many offspring as possible regardless of whether she was in a position to support them. The decision to take DNA from a male and female partner, combine them and have them implanted into a woman's uterus to begin a process of becoming human life is something that should only happen with a woman's full consent.

I never said that i was quoting philogos . Anyways my problem with his arguement remains the same his solution to ridding the world of abortion , by suggesting we all marry at an early age and remain in that marriage is unworkable and completely ridiculous.

The implications if such a system was to be inforced would only lead to a reliving of a pre- abortion time (if one ever exsisted) meaning that more woman would die through botched back street abortions and more new borns would be found in garbage bins.

If people are truely interesed in eradicating abortion or seeing it decreased i think it would be a much more posistive step forward to find a better cheaper and healthier form of contraception than the ones currently available and one which dare i say it messed with the males fertilty for a change.