Abortion Discussion

lazygal

If life begins at conception why don't we issue death certificates for babies born before24 weeks gestation or pay child benefit from conception?

hinault

lazygal wrote: »

If life begins at conception why don't we issue death certificates for babies born before24 weeks gestation or pay child benefit from conception?

We could scrap birthdays and celebrate conception days instead while we're at it. :rolleyes:

But then you and your ilk would be in a further bind if we did that.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

The evidence too is irrefutible that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

This is also wrong: space is curved.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

If life begins at conception why don't we issue death certificates for babies born before24 weeks gestation or pay child benefit from conception?

Curious, this is the case in Ireland but is it the case in the USA as well?

If it is, then it fully undermines hinault claim that life begins at conception.
We already know that hinault's claim is baseless but it'll be funny to watch the usa gov confirm it even more

While we're at it, hinault, any comment on whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn?.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is also wrong: space is curved.

Feel free to take the longer route so.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

We could scrap birthdays and celebrate conception days instead while we're at it. :rolleyes:

So not bothering to respond to why we don't issue death certs for the deceased born or whether travelling to kill the unborn is ok?

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious, this is the case in Ireland but is it the case in the USA as well?

If it is, then it fully undermines hinault claim that life begins at conception.
We already know that hinault's claim is baseless but it'll be funny to watch the usa gov confirm it even more

While we're at it, hinault, any comment on whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn?.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

So not bothering to respond to why we don't issue death certs for the deceased born or whether travelling to kill the unborn is ok?

Nah, far easier for them to question dodge
:rolleyes:

hinault wrote: »

Feel free to take the longer route so.

I think its more about the factual route, not something you appear to be able to do

hinault

lazygal wrote: »

So not bothering to respond to why we don't issue death certs for the deceased

Contact the State authorities. As far as I'm aware when you die a death cert will be issued

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

We could scrap birthdays and celebrate conception days instead while we're at it. :rolleyes:

But then you and your ilk would be in a further bind if we did that.

Really? I've two dates of conception to celebrate for my daughter and my son. What is my "ilk"? Am I in a bind for having gestated two unborn children?

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

Read the United States Senate Report and read the part which says that the Senate accepts that the overwhelming evidence shows that conception is the start of human life.

A total of 14 Senators in committees voted positively, and 10 against. Hatch withdrew it from full Senate consideration because it had zero chance of getting passed.

Utterly unconvincing even to its intended audience, the US legislature 30+ years ago. Proves absolutely nothing now.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

Contact the State authorities.

You don't think it's legally confusing that the state recognizes the unborn but doesn't issue death certificates for all deceased unborn children? Or that women can freely travel to kill the unborn?

hinault

lazygal wrote: »

Really?

Really.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Utterly unconvincing even to its intended audience, the US legislature 30+ years ago.

United States Senate Report states otherwise.

Dublin Red Devil

In the words Kang and Kodos. "Abortions for some, Miniture American flags for others"

Dublin Red Devil

In the words Kang and Kodos. "Abortions for some, Miniture American flags for others"

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

Feel free to take the longer route so.

Here you are, an intro to curved space. Mind you, that assumes you know the world is a globe in the illustrations. You are aware that the world is not flat anymore¹, aren't you?

¹ We understand that back when the Book of Job was written, the Earth was flat and had four corners, but these days it's the shape of a ball. Not a rugby ball, now, a soccer ball.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

United States Senate Report states otherwise.

So the legislature was convinced, but Hatch withdrew his amendment for no reason? Even though he believed fetuses are human lives? What a cruel, cruel man!

Or, more likely, the legislature was not convinced of anything by this testimony or this report. If anyone bothers to check, they'll find that the 14 senators who voted to report favourably were all Republicans, and the 10 against were all Democrats, and this testimony you are so fond of changed no minds at all: nobody accepted it as authoritative except people who already believed it.

Utterly worthless.

Cabaal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

¹ We understand that back when the Book of Job was written, the Earth was flat and had four corners, but these days it's the shape of a ball. Not a rugby ball, now, a soccer ball.

Course we know from history that even then the idiots who wrote that part of the bible were clueless as they thought the world was flat,

yet others had clearly observed it was not flat

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here you are, an intro to curved space. Mind you, that assumes you know the world is a globe in the illustrations. You are aware that the world is not flat anymore¹, aren't you?

¹ We understand that back when the Book of Job was written, the Earth was flat and had four corners, but these days it's the shape of a ball. Not a rugby ball, now, a soccer ball.

And the straight line remains the shortest distance between two points.

Feel free to continue to take the longer distance between two points though. At least you're consistent

kylith

hinault wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

What exactly proves life begins at conception? When does conception happen? Are frozen embryos life?

The assertions made in the testimony to the United States Senate.

hinault wrote: »

It contradicts nothing. The evidence remains irrefutible.

May I suggest that you spend some time researching the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'. That it was sworn under oath does not mean that it is true, only that it is believed to be so by the people who said it. I could swear under oath that I think Robindch is the Shankhill butcher, it wouldn't make it true.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In a way, I suppose this is a sign of how successful people have been in changing the common view of depression and related issues. Once, people thought everyone who was depressed, anxious and suicidal was just unable to cope with their problems. People have spent a long time and a lot of effort getting us to understand that depressed/anxious people may actually have a mental illness like clinical depression needing treatment, and are not just overwhelmed by some problem.

Here we see the opposite, the assumption that anyone with suicidal thoughts has an underlying condition. Not always true - sometimes people are unable to adjust to some event or situation, and get depressed/anxious and even suicidal as a result: they have an adjustment disorder, sometimes called situational depression.

Resolving the problem causing the stress can often fix them right up.

Very well put. That one is suicidal does not necessarily mean that one is clinically depressed. And if one is suicidal because one has been made pregnant by their rapist then it is reasonable to look at removing the cause of the suicidal ideations.

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

Any luck yet with locating that link that I asked you about yesterday, Shanahan?

And. Are candidates running for election required to agree with every single policy that their political party advocates? Really?

Just the ones they decide are central, such as the idea that governments should impose the smallest possible number of restrictions on personal liberty as is possible.

You know? Liberal? As in Liberal Party? Is this thing on?

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So the legislature was convinced.

The Committee report says that they accepted the overwhelming evidence.
Don't shoot the messenger. If you disagree with the Committee report take that up with the Committee.

aloyisious

hinault wrote: »

The assertions made in the testimony to the United States Senate.

Said assertations merely them sharing the expert knowledge they had at that particular point in time about their field of science with the US Senate and having it entered into the record as such. It's accepted as irrefutable (then and now) that life begins when a male gamate and a female gamate merge, so nothing new there, unless some-one comes up with a alternative verifiable scientific theory. For some people (on the basis of freedom of opinion), another way of putting it would be "it's life, but not as we want to recognize it".

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

The Committee report says that they accepted the overwhelming evidence.

Yes, 4-0 one day (presumably, the democrats were busy that day), and 14-10 another day.

14 Republican senators 30 years ago voted for a report which was then binned. You are embarrassing your cause pretending that is convincing.

But please continue! Did Dana write any reports on the subject?

_rebelkid

hinault wrote: »

United States Senate Sub Committee Report states otherwise.

FTFY

The Senate did not make a report on it. A Sub Committee with interest in separation of powers made a report and came to that conclusion after only 3 days of hearings. The only reason it had a hearing was because of Conservative and Religious lobbies. Those who were formulating the report were the ones who were lobbied by those groups, so were always going to agree with the conjecture of "Medical Experts" who were opposed to abortion long before that hearing.

That Bill, once it got past the pre-disposition of the sub committee, fell flat on it's face because it had no credibility medical or other wise. Even independent legal experts questioned the validity of that report.

The testimony from those you quoted is not credible in modern medicine. The only people referencing it is Anti-Abortion campaigners. No one in modern Medical Science references that testimony as properly grounded fact, because it just isn't.

If the Bill was logically grounded fact, it would have been adopted by the Full Senate. It is not those things, it was not adopted by the Senate, and it was not, and is not, adopted by Medical Science.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, 4-0 one day, and 14-10 another day.

I know.

hinault

_rebelkid wrote: »

The testimony from those you quoted is not credible in modern medicine. The only people referencing it is Anti-Abortion campaigners. No one in modern Medical Science references that testimony as properly grounded fact, because it just isn't.

So the witness were telling lies in their sworn public testimony? Is that your contention?

Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical evidence presented to, and accepted by, the United States Senate?
If so supply a link.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

It's accepted as irrefutable (then and now) that life begins when a male gamate and a female gamate merge, so nothing new there, unless some-one comes up with a alternative verifiable scientific theory.

Nonsense: both the male and female gametes are alive and human before merging, so life or human life certainly does not begin at that point.

As I understand it, life began on the 25th of October, 4004 BCE, and human life on 27th, which I think was a Thursday.

aloyisious

What's not also denied is that (certainly in law) the life-form or feotus in a woman's womb is unborn. That makes for a difference between a human life-form in a womb and human life (an independently-living birthed/born being) outside the womb. On the basis of there being an actual difference between the living routine of the two life-forms, I imagine that the birthed/born one may have more civil rights in Irish law (through the mother - through I could be wrong) than the life-form in the woman's womb.

Edit. Some parts of another post got mixed up with the above, errors deleted.