Abortion

EclipsiumRasa

robp wrote: »

If this was the case there probably would be some data on this. Maybe this could be true in very under-developed parts of Africa but not here. Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland). In many years its lower than countries with far superior health systems e.g. France, UK and Spain.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.

EclipsiumRasa,
Personal attacks are a sign of a losing argument :pac:

Truth, but nothing commands someone's complete attention like a bolt out of the blue. So now that I have yours, lets discuss one or two things ...

Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland).

Evidence that Ireland is a pro-life country certainly exists; but I'd argue its anything but conclusive. The number of large scale surveys conducted on the topic of abortion on a large scale is few. This means what data there is remains open to interpretation by you or I.

Granted the results of the Lisbon treaty changed once Cowen had assurances from the EU that Ireland alone would decide its stance on abortion; however

• that was not the sole variable that changed between the first and second run of the treaty
• the Lisbon treaty did not solely address the issue of women's rights or abortion

Additionally, I don't much like the terms pro-life or pro-choice - especially applied at a national level where the term is a blanket denial of the existence of any opposing view.

Both terms are openly manipulative (just as manipulative as my leading personal attack into this debate really) and I resent the amount of pride people take describing themselves as either. Moral superiority is annoyingly distracting to a debate that could revolve around scientific research and health statistics instead.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.

A hypothetical but not unrealistic situation: What about situations where mothers are not medically fit to travel to England (due to serious and or long term injury) but desire an abortion?

Such women are not getting first rate medical care; they are not masters of their own destiny. And instead of the law deciding Irish women have a right to be that, they're effectively prisoners in their own country.

___

Oh, one more thing. I'm sorry about the personal attack too. That was plain wrong. Sometimes the most effective ways to make a point are tempting to use, even if they're morally unsound. Doesn't change that it was wrong.

Lingua Franca

Four out of five voters would back a change in our laws to allow for abortion in line with the X-case ruling according to a new opinion poll.

Interesting.

Actor

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Four out of five voters would back a change in our laws to allow for abortion in line with the X-case ruling according to a new opinion poll.

Interesting.

Thin end of the wedge stuff.

Lingua Franca

Actor wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge stuff.

Well, we can but hope. It certainly gives lie to the "we don't want it here" mantra repeated in this thread.


By the way, you never responded after I corrected you when you said

Actor wrote: »

Ever found it strange that there are no "pro-choice" doctors in Ireland who are willing to put themselves forward?

Funny, that. :pac:

Actor

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Well, we can but hope. It certainly gives lie to the "we don't want it here" mantra repeated in this thread.

So you "hope" for abortion on demand? At least we know what we're dealing with here.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

By the way, you never responded after I corrected you when you said

Funny, that. :pac:

How many of the said doctors are consultants? A motley lot of cranks who got passed over for promotion. That's whose side you're on.

Pace2008

cynder wrote: »

Cancer is never going to be an independent human life form.

How do they kill the zygotes?

I would presume the zygote fails to implant it's nothing to do with having a medical procedure to kill it. Many people would not know the zygote failed to implant. They wouldnt know there was a zygote inside them, not every sex session results in a zygote. They would be non the wiser and it wouldn't be her fault that the zygote didn't implant.

I don't think you're really getting my point so I'm going to out it simply:

You, and every other pro-lifer I've ever known, find it acceptable for two parents to get pregnant and allow a zygote to die without any intervention, but once the child is born, or has reached a certain stage in development you would not (I assume) find it acceptable for the same parents to allow their child to die of an illness while they sit idly by. Do you not see a pretty big inconsistency there?

Lingua Franca

Actor wrote: »

So you "hope" for abortion on demand? At least we know what we're dealing with here.

Yes.

How many of the said doctors are consultants? A motley lot of cranks who got passed over for promotion. That's whose side you're on.

You absolutely cannot admit that you were wrong even in the face of proof. At least we know what we're dealing with here. :pac:

(edit: or perhaps not since you're now thanking pro-choice posts )

Please provide your evidence of said crankishness and your proof that they were passed over for promotion, along with corresponding impartial evidence that the Dublin declaration panel are a homogenous crowd all totally sane and promoted to the maximum, or we'll all just have to assume that you are making stuff up again.

Marie Stopes to provide abortions at new private clinic in Belfast

The Marie Stopes organisation says it will begin its services from next Thursday and that Dawn Purvis, a former leader of the Progressive Unionist Party, will be the centre's programme director.
Marie Stopes said it will be Belfast's first integrated sexual and reproductive health centre.
It will be located at a suite of offices in Great Victoria Street.

Full story here

summerskin

Deleted User wrote: »

Marie Stopes to provide abortions at new private clinic in Belfast




Full story here

irish ferries and ryanair will not be amused...

gosuckonalemon

About time! Only for medical abortions and not surgical abortions so pregnancy must be less than 9 weeks gestation.

gosuckonalemon

summerskin wrote: »

irish ferries and ryanair will not be amused...

On the other hand, Bus Eireann and Irish Rail will!

Lollipops23

Deleted User wrote: »

Marie Stopes to provide abortions at new private clinic in Belfast

Delighted. It's the first step in getting it properly. It'll take much of the mental and financial stress away from the process I'd imagine.

Min

At least the clinic is named after a person that is fitting.

A Marie Stopes clinic is to open in Northern Ireland and will perform abortions on women up to nine weeks pregnant. I wonder what sort of organisation it is which decides to name itself after Marie Stopes (1880-1958)?
As a child she met the eugenicist Francis Galton and in 1912 she attended the inaugural congress of the Eugenics Society. She had decided political opinions and referred to a section of the people who are “inferior, depraved and feeble-minded” and added, “the sterilisation of those unfit for parenthood should be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” She announced that she wanted to create “a utopia” by means of “racial purification”.
Other leading lights in the eugenics movement – such as Havelock Ellis – criticised her for her anti-Semitism. This criticism was hardly undeserved, for in 1939 she sent, with her best wishes, a copy of her book “Love Songs for Young Lovers” to Adolf Hitler. And in 1942 she published a verse:

Catholics, Prussians
The Jews and the Russians
Are all a curse
Or something worse.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100184639/marie-stopes-the-clinics-named-after-a-jew-baiting-racist/

robp

Min wrote: »

At least the clinic is named after a person that is fitting.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100184639/marie-stopes-the-clinics-named-after-a-jew-baiting-racist/

They even have a plaque to honour her in London. Strange hypocritical world!

c_man

I like the lines they left out above when ripping it from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes#Advocacy_of_eugenics

Lingua Franca

And this whole section also seems to have been glossed over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes#Abortion_views

It's almost like they're selectively quoting to push an agenda or something.

poeticseraphim

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of extremist types but this morning, i found the country's favorite moral crusader aka Ray D'arcy, preaching on about the rights of women who've had abortions. This led me to the conclusion that there's a general consensus these days that abortion is now acceptable to the majority (ok not just this alone), but if this is the case, i think it raises two issues going forward (as they say)

Firstly, maintenance payments for children? How can a society, or individual, who supports a woman's exclusive right to chose to have an abortion at the same time come to fathers with the paw out looking for money to support children. If a father has no choice whether the child is alive or not how can he be demanded to support that child? Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Secondly, the Ray D'arcy show this morning was talking about counseling for women after abortion. Seemingly the HSE already pays for this. I can't understand how state support for counseling for women who've had abortions is justified. On one side of the debate, pro abortionists say it's a procedure to remove a physical growth which isn't alive. If that's the case why the need for counseling? On the other side, anti-abortionists say it's murder, so why would the state be counseling murderers? Did I miss something, do we not still have old folk being left to rot on trolleys, surely the HSE has greater priorities now than counseling women who've chose to have an abortion.

As you may have guessed, i'm anti-abortion. I'm not religious I just believe that an unborn child is alive. Why else would people mourn the loss of unborn or stillborn children? Or require counseling after 'terminating' one? Given that i believe that an unborn child is alive I think killing one is wrong and cannot be justified above the social or material needs of the parent(s). No more or less than i think it would be ok to kill your elderly parents just because they don't suit where you are in you're life right snow.....

To me it does not matter if it is alive. It has not right to my body under any circumstances. It is deeply immoral to not respect the complete ownership relationship awoman has of her body.

Not having abortion is damaging to society.

Not giving abortion on demand is immoral and an abuse on human rights.


The foetus is owned by the mother until birth....we oppose forced abortion no???

Abortion is an ethical practise by doctors doing good humane work to millions of women everyday.
Long may it continue!

I wish our mothers had this option in their day. I want the next generation of women to have it.I would never want to come into this world against my mothers will. It is against motherhood. My mother knows what is right for me as a foetus. No one has the right to intervene.



I have never had an abortion but i imagine it is something you mourn too that would be natural. Just because the woman did the right thing does not mean it was the easy thing. Sometimes abortion is more moral than giving birth. But i cant imagine it's easy.So these women should have support. I can imagine a time when society is more open about abortion and we allow women to mourne. Why would their pain mean that the decision to have an abortion is not a moral one?

Should drug addicts give birth?

poeticseraphim

Also when people say they speak for the unborn child it annoys me.

Most people are pro choice ....you did not speak for the majority walking about now when they were in the womb did you?

I would not have wanted to grow up a product of a womans fear and suffering.

Maybe you are not respecting the rights of the unborn foetus for claiming you are it's voice.

There is a reason it has no voice.....because it has not formed a view of life or a will for or against it.

And if it has..well you have no idea what that is. Maybe a child dos not want to be born terminally ill destined to die in minutes.

Maybe people don't want to b brought into the world unless they are loved and card for.

Some of the unborn grow up to have a voice in opposition to those who claim to speak for them...funny that.

Min

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Also when people say they speak for the unborn child it annoys me.

Most people are pro choice ....you did not speak for the majority walking about now when they were in the womb did you?

I would not have wanted to grow up a product of a womans fear and suffering.

Maybe you are not respecting the rights of the unborn foetus for claiming you are it's voice.

There is a reason it has no voice.....because it has not formed a view of life or a will for or against it.

And if it has..well you have no idea what that is. Maybe a child dos not want to be born terminally ill destined to die in minutes.

Maybe people don't want to b brought into the world unless they are loved and card for.

Some of the unborn grow up to have a voice in opposition to those who claim to speak for them...funny that.

We all lived in the womb once upon a time, we can speak out for the unborn if we want, given we were once the unborn, and we were allowed to have a voice to speak out.

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.
But at least they were allowed to live to have that opinion.

AnonoBoy

Min wrote: »

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.

It's not really that funny.

Being pro-choice is exactly that, being pro choice.

If they were against choice but called themselves pro-choice it'd be funny.

Like the dudes who murder abortion doctors but call themselves pro-life. That's funny you see because they're actually doing the exact same thing that they proclaim to be against.

philologos

robp wrote: »

If this was the case there probably would be some data on this. Maybe this could be true in very under-developed parts of Africa but not here. Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland). In many years its lower than countries with far superior health systems e.g. France, UK and Spain.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.



EclipsiumRasa,
Personal attacks are a sign of a losing argument :pac:

Studies which have looked at mortality in birth have shown that mortality rates are higher after abortions. This is true of studies undertaken in Denmark, Finland, Scotland and the United States.

There are links and citations to the studies here.

I don't believe abortion-by-choice is much good for mother, and it is lethal for child.

poeticseraphim

Min wrote: »

We all lived in the womb once upon a time, we can speak out for the unborn if we want, given we were once the unborn, and we were allowed to have a voice to speak out.

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.
But at least they were allowed to live to have that opinion.

No you can't . And neither can I.

No one can. That is the point.

They have no voice and claiming one side of the debate represents them is abusive and opressive towards them just in a different way.

Growing up knowing you are the product of incest or rape affects people in ways that we never speak about.

I would not want my mother to have to go through a pregnancy with me if she did not want to....it would not be enough...i want her love and blessing or nothing.

You did not speak for me as an unborn child. So qualify that statement you speak for some embryos.

I use th term embryo because 'Unborn' is a ridiculous definition from a pro-life point of view as in humans, the 'unborn' is specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.


Before three months it is incorrect to refer to human developing offspring as the 'fetus' or an 'unborn' as it is in the embryonic stage of develpment. For the first three months it is not actually an 'unborn child'.The unborn is a post-embyonic stage offspring of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.


The use of strange eugenics arguments or comparing disabled people to embryonic stage offspring is common. But entirely illogical. A human person without a brain lying in a bed shares the characteristics of a vertebrate. A human embryo does not share much more in common with an adult human at all. They share certain similarities with other embryonic species. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny when applid to single characteristics. That means single characteristics of embryos go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.


The 'person' you claim to speak for.....has of pharyngeal arches (also called pharyngeal pouches or gill slits)... embryos have gill slits...did you know that? In fish they develop into gills in humans and chicken they become parts of the head. It is not a person . It is not even a fetus yet. It has more in common with the embryos of other species than it does with human person in terms of physical biology.

It is not even living being . A single cell organism has vital functions that keep it alive an embryo has no vital functions. Biologically it is not alive.what 'works is actually outside of itself'.. Embryos are not alive; they do not fulfill the scientific definition of being alive, which is: a living organism must be able to move, breathe, have at least one sense, grow, reproduce, excrete waste, and eat.

It is only a living being if you consider it to be a part of the woman.


http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article637


Francis Kaplan argues the embryo is not even a POTENTIAL human being.


You are arguing over the right of a non living embryo over the right of choice of an adult woman.

So get your definitions correct before you incorrectly and scandalously accuse me of advocating 'the termination of someone else's life in the womb'. I advocate no such thing.

I give the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy in the embryonic stage....you know when it has no head but the same number of of pharyngeal arches gill slits as a chicken embryo and no vital functions and actually not alive.

poeticseraphim

philologos wrote: »

Studies which have looked at mortality in birth have shown that mortality rates are higher after abortions. This is true of studies undertaken in Denmark, Finland, Scotland and the United States.

There are links and citations to the studies here.

I don't believe abortion-by-choice is much good for mother, and it is lethal for child.

Then don't have one.



Pregnancy by force is a disgusting abuse of human rights on the mother and is inexcusable. The trauma is unacceptable.

How do we know this? Women tell us. Not all do ...but some.

An embryo is not a child nor is it a fetus yet. It is not even alive.

and it is lethal for child.

:rolleyes: yes we know. We may disagree with your definitions on the basis that they are technically incorrect and slightly infantile. But I get the jist of your sentiment. The embryo is no more......yeah..ok....sure

Abortion has never proved lethal to any child as far as I know.....embryos and fetuses it has terminated (which is not the same as being lethal).

Don't equat child with embryo...children have and should have infinitely more rights and protections than embryos...they are not even remotely similar biologically.
'

philologos

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Then don't have one.

Pregnancy by force is a disgusting abuse of human rights on the mother and is inexcusable. The trauma is unacceptable.

How do we know this? Women tell us. Not all do ...but some.

An embryo is not a child nor is it a fetus yet. It is not even alive.

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".

poeticseraphim wrote: »

:rolleyes: yes we know. We may disagree with your definitions on the basis that they are technically incorrect and slightly infantile. But I get the jist of your sentiment. The embryo is no more......yeah..ok....sure

Abortion has never proved lethal to any child as far as I know.....embryos and fetuses it has terminated (which is not the same as being lethal).

Don't equat child with embryo...children have and should have infinitely more rights and protections than embryos...they are not even remotely similar biologically.
'

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

poeticseraphim

philologos wrote: »

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".



How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

No you are completely incorrect. That is why we have embryonic stem cell research in Ireland.

An Embryo is biologically and physiologoically(which is probably more important anyway) a human embryo...not a human person.

A human embryo is not physiologically a human person. A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either:the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears,and has not yet reached 9 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.

Neither of those is a human being. The majority of the Biological markers are not present. In fact the cells you think are 'human ' at this stage could still divide and become two individuals.


The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

It is scientifically correct they don't meet the criteria. Which you do not seem to even be aware of. They have no heart beat no actual vital functions within itself until these develop.
Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit metabolism and homeostasis. An embryo in a dish does not. It is the mother that preforms these functions.

WHen i say 'Women tell us' I mean when an individual woman says...this is to much for me..that means IT IS. She has a first person relationship with herself body. No other woman knows. And if it is not their body they should butt out.


You are now physiologically nothing like an embryo. That embryo you became was not even male. It was female. You became you. Your indentity as an individual did not exist.

No it is absolutley not alive. If you have a choice to save an embryo or a child or a person you choose the child or a living person. Thats why we have embryonic stem cell research in Ireland. We recognise the embyro is not a human person.

poeticseraphim

philologos wrote: »

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".



How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091217/full/news.2009.1148.html

We already do that in Ireland...have been for years....:rolleyes:

That is not what the issue is about. It is not about the definition of an embryo as the state already recognises that an embryo in and of itself is not a human.


'The Supreme Court ruled that embryos outside the womb are not unborn children within the meaning of the Constitution of Ireland. This ruling is in line with the conclusions of a 2005 government-commissioned report that argued that an embryo is not protected under the constitution until it has been implanted into a womb. '

K-9

DUP Health Minister was on UTV, no surprise at their position.

Alliance for on BBC and SDLP against, no surprise again.

SF put forward no representative, the biggest pro choice party seems to have gone to ground.

Min

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No you can't . And neither can I.

No one can. That is the point.

They have no voice and claiming one side of the debate represents them is abusive and opressive towards them just in a different way.

Growing up knowing you are the product of incest or rape affects people in ways that we never speak about.

I would not want my mother to have to go through a pregnancy with me if she did not want to....it would not be enough...i want her love and blessing or nothing.

You did not speak for me as an unborn child. So qualify that statement you speak for some embryos.

I use th term embryo because 'Unborn' is a ridiculous definition from a pro-life point of view as in humans, the 'unborn' is specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.


Before three months it is incorrect to refer to human developing offspring as the 'fetus' or an 'unborn' as it is in the embryonic stage of develpment. For the first three months it is not actually an 'unborn child'.The unborn is a post-embyonic stage offspring of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.


The use of strange eugenics arguments or comparing disabled people to embryonic stage offspring is common. But entirely illogical. A human person without a brain lying in a bed shares the characteristics of a vertebrate. A human embryo does not share much more in common with an adult human at all. They share certain similarities with other embryonic species. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny when applid to single characteristics. That means single characteristics of embryos go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.


The 'person' you claim to speak for.....has of pharyngeal arches (also called pharyngeal pouches or gill slits)... embryos have gill slits...did you know that? In fish they develop into gills in humans and chicken they become parts of the head. It is not a person . It is not even a fetus yet. It has more in common with the embryos of other species than it does with human person in terms of physical biology.

It is not even living being . A single cell organism has vital functions that keep it alive an embryo has no vital functions. Biologically it is not alive.what 'works is actually outside of itself'.. Embryos are not alive; they do not fulfill the scientific definition of being alive, which is: a living organism must be able to move, breathe, have at least one sense, grow, reproduce, excrete waste, and eat.

It is only a living being if you consider it to be a part of the woman.


http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article637


Francis Kaplan argues the embryo is not even a POTENTIAL human being.


You are arguing over the right of a non living embryo over the right of choice of an adult woman.

So get your definitions correct before you incorrectly and scandalously accuse me of advocating 'the termination of someone else's life in the womb'. I advocate no such thing.

I give the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy in the embryonic stage....you know when it has no head but the same number of of pharyngeal arches gill slits as a chicken embryo and no vital functions and actually not alive.

We were all unborn once, so at the very least we can say we are talking from experience.
Being pro-choice, you have no problem with the termination of a unique human life if someone wishes to do it.
An embryo is alive, it has all the DNA of a human being just not a person.
If it was not actually alive it would end up as a natural abortion.

Min

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091217/full/news.2009.1148.html

We already do that in Ireland...have been for years....:rolleyes:

That is not what the issue is about. It is not about the definition of an embryo as the state already recognises that an embryo in and of itself is not a human.


'The Supreme Court ruled that embryos outside the womb are not unborn children within the meaning of the Constitution of Ireland. This ruling is in line with the conclusions of a 2005 government-commissioned report that argued that an embryo is not protected under the constitution until it has been implanted into a womb. '

Your Supreme court quote nowhere mentions anything about human beings, it mentions unborn children, and one would hope a pregnant human being would have an unborn human being in her womb and not something out of alien.

Mickeroo

What you're saying is the embryo is organic matter, so technically yes, it's alive. What people really mean in these arguments when they say "alive" is "self aware" or capable of feeling, which it isn't since it doesn't have the hardware necessary at that stage of development. Obviously if you believe in an immortal soul then the point is moot to you anyway.

Anyway, glad to see that clinic opening. At least it will take some of the difficulty out of the equation.