March for Choice 29th September

philologos

bodice ripper wrote: »

a prerequisite.

any proof otherwise will be regarded with great interest by me.

"because the sky man said", "obviously", "evident", "imo", and argument by assertion won't do. Scientific evidence would be ideal.

You're being obtuse now.

Sperm and ova are the biological prerequisites that when fused in conception form a zygote which develops and grows in the womb until birth, and develops subsequently to childhood, adolescence, adulthood and then death. I've explained this to you. This is biological reality.

The burden of proof as far as I'm concerned lies with those who are making claims that fly in the face of what we already know biologically. That is that the foetus is not alive biologically, that is that the embryo is not alive biologically and that they aren't formed of human biological material.

That's all I need to argue that it is a human life.

What do you have to suggest that is wrong? Or do you have nothing?

Convince me that the pro-choice position is sound!

For the record, if you want me to discuss what I think about God, or Christianity, feel free to PM me or post on the Christianity forum. Here I'm going to discuss my objections to abortion-by-choice.

bodice ripper

philologos wrote: »

You're being obtuse now.

Sperm and ova are the biological prerequisites that when fused in conception form a zygote which develops and grows in the womb until birth, and develops subsequently to childhood, adolescence, adulthood and then death. I've explained this to you. This is biological reality.

.

and?

I can't understand how you could think that I am being obtuse...

The whole point of this argument is when does this become human life. I don't agree that it begins at conception. you can say "evident" and "reality" all you want.

Actor

philologos wrote: »

For the record, if you want me to discuss what I think about God, or Christianity, feel free to PM me or post on the Christianity forum. Here I'm going to discuss my objections to abortion-by-choice.

Ignoring the moral and religious dimension to this debate is illogical. Abortion is predominantly a moral argument. Yes, it's informed by scientific rationale, but science on its own is incapable of correct decision-making in this instance.

Actor

bodice ripper wrote: »

and?

I can't understand how you could think that I am being obtuse...

The whole point of this argument is when does this become human life. I don't agree that it begins at conception. you can say "evident" and "reality" all you want.

You don't "believe" that life begins at conception? Is that a religious belief or a personal belief? Ask any doctor when human life begins and they'll give you a pretty definitive answer - conception.

bodice ripper

Actor wrote: »

You don't "believe" that life begins at conception? Is that a religious belief or a personal belief? Ask any doctor when human life begins and they'll give you a pretty definitive answer - conception.

except all the doctors who are willing to preform abortions, one assumes...

Actor

bodice ripper wrote: »

except all the doctors who are willing to preform abortions, one assumes...

You don't need to have a disbelief that life begins at conception to perform an abortion. Abortion "doctors" are attracted by the money (it's big business) and the lifestyle that goes with it (24 hour security, driver, etc.)

bodice ripper

Actor wrote: »

You don't need to have a disbelief that life begins at conception to perform an abortion. Abortion "doctors" are attracted by the money (it's big business) and the lifestyle that goes with it (24 hour security, driver, etc.)

says you.

So ALL doctors everywhere subscribe to this thought, do they?

philologos

bodice ripper wrote: »

and?

I can't understand how you could think that I am being obtuse...

The whole point of this argument is when does this become human life. I don't agree that it begins at conception. you can say "evident" and "reality" all you want.

Why don't you agree?

What do you think a biological life is?

Do you think something that is biologically dead can grow?

Do you think that a biological organism that is formed of human biological material is anything but human?

If so why?

When I say - evident - I mean this is what we know biologically about how the embryo is formed on its most basic level.

By reality - I mean what is true.

If you disagree, tell me why you disagree. That's what a discussion entails.

AnonoBoy

Actor wrote: »

Abortion "doctors" are attracted by the money (it's big business) and the lifestyle that goes with it (24 hour security, driver, etc.)

24 hour security? Why would they need that?

Oh yeah, because of whackjobs who want to murder them.

Didn't anyone ever teach these guys that two wrongs don't make a right?

philologos

Actor wrote: »

Ignoring the moral and religious dimension to this debate is illogical. Abortion is predominantly a moral argument. Yes, it's informed by scientific rationale, but science on its own is incapable of correct decision-making in this instance.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm an evangelical Christian, and those beliefs are core to my life, but the reality of the matter is that this is more sound and has a heck of a lot more basis in reality than the pro-choice view has in respect to the embryo.

It is a moral argument and I'm more than happy to discuss my faith with anyone. I want to walk through my reasons why I disagree with abortion and why I feel the pro-choice position isn't founded on truth. That's important.

bodice ripper

philologos wrote: »

Why don't you agree?

What do you think a biological life is?

Do you think something that is biologically dead can grow?

Do you think that a biological organism that is formed of human biological material is anything but human?

If so why?

When I say - evident - I mean this is what we know biologically about how the embryo is formed on its most basic level.

By reality - I mean what is true.

If you disagree, tell me why you disagree. That's what a discussion entails.

lots of amorphous balls of cells have the potential to be human life. So what? Why decide right then?

as previously stated, I don't see an issue when there is no potential for pain, fear, or conscious thought at that time. We slaughter far more complex life all the time.

old hippy

Actor wrote: »

You don't need to have a disbelief that life begins at conception to perform an abortion. Abortion "doctors" are attracted by the money (it's big business) and the lifestyle that goes with it (24 hour security, driver, etc.)

Links?

philologos

bodice ripper wrote: »

lots of amorphous balls of cells have the potential to be human life. So what? Why decide right then?

as previously stated, I don't see an issue when there is no potential for pain, fear, or conscious thought at that time. We slaughter far more complex life all the time.

You're a collection of cells, and so am I. Such doesn't belittle anything.

As for no potential of pain - even if there was no potential of pain I still don't think it is morally justified to take the life of another human being. Let's for arguments sake say that someone who inconvenienced you on a daily basis couldn't feel pain. Would it be justified to kill them? Of course not!

As for slaughtering more complex life - what do you mean? That we eat animals? Humans in ethics generally make distinctions between human life, and animal life due to the principle of empathy.

Conscious thought as a criteria is logically flawed - you're essentially saying that the life isn't as developed as you like, and as a result you think you should be free to kill it. It's an arbitrary criteria. I could decide because someone can't juggle 72482 oranges on a unicycle cycling up Mt Snowdon while playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on a viola that they aren't sufficiently developed and I should be able to kill them. The burden is on you to say why your arbitrary criteria has any objective weight.

AnonoBoy

old hippy wrote: »

Links?

Evidence not necessary, blind faith enough.

Believe...... :pac:

philologos

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Evidence not necessary, blind faith enough.

Believe...... :pac:

That's what I think about the pro-choice position to be honest with you.

bodice ripper

philologos wrote: »

Why don't you agree?

.

Also, petulant.

AnonoBoy

philologos wrote: »

That's what I think about the pro-choice position to be honest with you.

Good for you.

But I'd still like to see Actor try to back up his/her assertion that abortion doctors are in it for the 'lifestyle'. :rolleyes:

philologos

bodice ripper wrote: »

Also, petulant.

Is this going anywhere or are you willing to answer my questions to dig deeper into your objections to my position?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Is this going anywhere or are you willing to answer my questions to dig deeper into your objections to my position?

Why? You only run away and hide in the hills every time the arguments get too hot for you.

Your anti abortion arguments are simplistic at best. You declare that taxonomically speaking the zygote is "Human". You then leap from there to declaring it therefore has a soul and rights and has to be protected from harm like any other human. Covering the chasm you just leapt over with empty rhetoric in the hope that no one notices it is there.

Your entire position in other words is based on one tiny thing. The attempt to base the entire discourse of Human Ethics and Rights on Taxonomy. Thats it. Your entire position in a nutshell. Justified to yourself then by pretending there is a god.... a position you also have zero evidence for.... and declaring that this god just happens to agree with you whole heartedly.

Actor

AnonoBoy wrote: »

24 hour security? Why would they need that?

Oh yeah, because of whackjobs who want to murder them.

Didn't anyone ever teach these guys that two wrongs don't make a right?

They need 24 hour security because what they're doing is morally wrong to most sensible people.

bodice ripper

philologos wrote: »

Is this going anywhere or are you willing to answer my questions to dig deeper into your objections to my position?

Sorry, I was preforming abortions.


I told you repeatedly, capacity for emotion and or conscious thought. a ball of cells has neither of these.

I don't believe in a soul, and I don't much care if you or anyone else does either.

Actor

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sorry, I was preforming abortions.


I told you repeatedly, capacity for emotion and or conscious thought. a ball of cells has neither of these.

I don't believe in a soul, and I don't much care if you or anyone else does either.

A very apt username you have there.

bodice ripper

Actor wrote: »

A very apt username you have there.

what with the fetus gestating within the woman's chest and all...

philologos

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sorry, I was preforming abortions.


I told you repeatedly, capacity for emotion and or conscious thought. a ball of cells has neither of these.

I don't believe in a soul, and I don't much care if you or anyone else does either.

I've responded to the objection of the capacity of the emotion or conscious thought, it's about as arbitrary and as meaningful as claiming that I consider that life begins when you finally unicycle while juggling 82414 pears up Kilamanjaro while playing Handel's Messiah.

Read my posts, and we'll get into a proper discussion. If it's just that you're going to repeat yourself without any consideration for what others say to you then that's not a discussion.

MagicSean

Actor wrote: »

They need 24 hour security because what they're doing is morally wrong to most sensible people.

Have to stop you there Dougal. doing something morally wrong does not in itself require security. Security is only to protect you from the actions of other people.

old hippy

Actor wrote: »

They need 24 hour security because what they're doing is morally wrong to most sensible people.

So people who have/perform terminations are not sensible?

Actor

"Hi, I'm an abortion doctor" is hardly something you bring up in polite company.

efb

Actor wrote: »

"Hi, I'm an abortion doctor" is hardly something you bring up in polite company.

Choice words...

Chain_reaction

PucaMama wrote: »

children in abusive families and as another poster pointed out in families with lots of debt have the option of foster care.

Obviously for the state to intervene a child has already been damaged enough in the home they are in due to neglect etc?

But that's obviously ok, its out of the womb now so who gives a ****?

In relation to your other comment about having the child and then giving it up for abortion I think that its pretty sick that you'd lets say make a rape victim/teenage girl/incest survivor carry a child like some incubating machine for childless couples.

Chain_reaction

Actor wrote: »

They need 24 hour security because what they're doing is morally wrong to most sensible people.

Like when this happened?

Dying patient had to endure pro-life demo


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dying-patient-had-to-endure-prolife-demo-411034.html

PRO-life protesters chanted slogans outside Dublin's former Adelaide Hospital which they accused of supporting abortion as an elderly woman lay dying inside, a court heard yesterday. PRO-life protesters chanted slogans outside Dublin's former Adelaide Hospital which they accused of supporting abortion as an elderly woman lay dying inside, a court heard yesterday. The woman's son appealed to them to stop the noise but was ignored.
A surgeon offered to let them in to see just how many ill patients were inside but they spurned him, claiming it was a set-up for the press.
When gardai intervened to try to make them quieten down, protesters hit officers with placards, tried to halt arrest of the organisers and sat in front of a Garda van, the court heard.
Yesterday 10 of the protesters, including members of the militant Youth Defence organisation, pleaded not guilty to public order offences.
Justin Barrett (28) of Springtown, Granard, Co Longford; Dennis Meehan (24) Tydavnet, Co Monaghan and Aoife Brid Ni Aodhan (20) Grace Park Heights, Dublin deny disorderly behaviour.
Aidan Kavanagh (30) Ballygall Place, Dublin; Michael Quinn (35) Ballyraggan, Rathvilly, Co Carlow and Maurice Colgan (25) Mountjoy Square, Dublin deny obstruction.
Christopher Palin (24) of Fairview Strand, Dublin; Maria Caulfield and her mother Esme, both of Brookfield Avenue, Artane, and Ciara Ni Aodhan (24), Grace Park Heights all deny assaulting gardai and disorderly behaviour.
They claim the trouble erupted when gardai acted in a heavy-handed manner just minutes before their peaceful protest was due to end.
They also say they offered to call a halt to the picket as soon as they became aware there were long-stay patients inside.
Dublin District Court heard the initially peaceful protest on May 16 last was prompted by a statement from the Adelaide Hospital Trust that the new Tallaght Hospital should offer abortion when medically indicated and in accordance with the law.
ONLY FEET AWAY
As more protesters arrived, the chanting became louder, causing upset and disturbance to the patients whose wards were just a few feet from the pavement picketers.
Staff had to leave at the rear and people entering by the front had to weave their way through the 50 or 60-strong crowd.
One was Brian Gillen, visiting his dying mother. When he asked them to stay quiet one protester told him: ``We cannot stay quiet while they are murdering babies in there.'' Another claimed Mr Gillen was a member of the hospital staff and urged others to ignore him.
Mr Gillen's mother died the following day.
Patient Rose Doherty in for a hip operation was upset by the protest, the continuing case was told.
Also, accused Colgan phoned the Adelaide the previous Wednesday and claimed to have been told there were no ill patients still in the hospital, which moved to Tallaght a week later.
When orthopaedic surgeon John Pegum offered to allow one or two of the protesters to enter and see the patients for themselves, Colgan initially agreed but was intercepted by Barrett who whispered something to him. Colgan then said he was not going in ``on legal advice''.
The court heard the chanting continued, led by Quinn, whose neck muscles were ``bulging'' such was the ferocity of his shouting.
Colgan took over, shouting with equal intensity and the crowd chanted back in unison.
Sgt Michael Hinney said at that stage, for the sake of patients, he warned Quinn and Colgan they would be arrested if they did not stop shouting but they continued.
He waited until a Garda van arrived to make the arrests but when he tried to get them inside it the crowd pulled and blocked gardai.
They closed the door of the van each time it was opened and eventually sat down on the roadway to try to stop it being driven away.
Justin Barrett, also arrested and put in the van, stood at the door and shouted ``everybody into the van.''
The defence claims trouble only erupted when the van arrived and some gardai over-reacted in a violent manner.
They also say some defendants were injured by gardai.
- TIM HEALY