‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't mind.

Pro-life marches have been far larger than pro-choice marches so I expect it will also be easier to get pro-life people to vote.

Thank you for your answer. Yes, I agree. I have no doubt they'll be bussed to the polling stations in huge numbers courtesy of US Christian fundamentalist financial support.

DuffmanGuy

sup_dude wrote: »

Yes I'm denying it because a handful of quotes from papers you didn't even read are not, and never will be, proof. I'm avoiding providing any proof because proof was requested off you and you've failed to do so. Why would I even bother looking for proof for you, when I'm doing so because you've failed to do so?
"We know this" means exactly that. We know fertilisation needs to happen for humans to procreate.

No amount of proof would be enough for you.

I'm requesting proof from you, as valid a request as was made of me. I've quoted several scientists, and listed the publications for your further reading.
You've provided nothing but vague opinion, and refuted none of what the listed scientists have stated. Or any references that refute them.

You're too close-minded to debate with. Some people are just like that.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't mind.

Pro-life marches have been far larger than pro-choice marches so I expect it will also be easier to get pro-life people to vote.

The pro life groups are much better organised and financed than the pro choice groups. Most of those are run by volunteers, people are actually employed by groups like YD etc. Its a business as much as anything.

I remember the last March for Life, there were ads in the Irish Catholic newspaper for weeks before advertising free buses. You just organised a group in your local area, phoned the number in the ad and they would send a bus to bring you to Dublin and bring you back.

I was in town in 2013 and saw the buses arrive full of people, there is no way the pro choice groups could even hope to organise anything like that. For that reason I take the numbers with a pinch of salt, I've missed the last few marches I wanted to go on because of other things I couldn't get out of, I'm sure most younger people are the same. The age profile of the prolife marches are older, mostly pensioners who wouldn't have the same time pressures.

I'd rather judge by a vote than the number marching and I think most people want their say no matter what side of the debate they are on.

Ave Sodalis

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

No amount of proof would be enough for you.

I'm requesting proof from you, as valid a request as was made of me. I've quoted several scientists, and listed the publications for your further reading.
You've provided nothing but vague opinion, and refuted none of what the listed scientists have stated. Or any references that refute them.

You're too close-minded to debate with. Some people are just like that.

No, actual proof would be good enough. As stated by multiple people on here, what you have provided is not proof. All I am requesting is actual proof. Science papers (not quotes from them) that you've read and can discuss. More than one, and full papers.
Stated? What scientists state isn't good enough for me.

I'm not closeminded at all. I'm offering you a chance to prove your point. You won't do that, and instead insist I do it for you or else call me closeminded because I won't accept stuff that proves nothing

Little CuChulainn

As far as I can see there are about four different points of view being argued in the abortion debate. You have the radicals on both ends suggesting that live either begins at conception or at birth. Then you have the two moderate positions arguing that life begins at around ten weeks (fetal stage) or 22 weeks (viability) based on development stage. Each person will use the same arguments against the people on either side of them in the scale. They will likely be able to find just as much medical evidence to back up their own view too. But this isn't really a medical issue, it's a philosophical one. Medical science can outline the development of the fetus but it is up to us to decide what makes a human life. Until we do that, it's unlikely we will ever reach a stable consensus on abortion.

Someone asked why the thanks whoring is an issue. It's because it creates a circlejerk of sniping that only further distances the sides from each other and destroys any reasonable debate on the issue.

marienbad

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As far as I can see there are about four different points of view being argued in the abortion debate. You have the radicals on both ends suggesting that live either begins at conception or at birth. Then you have the two moderate positions arguing that life begins at around ten weeks (fetal stage) or 22 weeks (viability) based on development stage. Each person will use the same arguments against the people on either side of them in the scale. They will likely be able to find just as much medical evidence to back up their own view too. But this isn't really a medical issue, it's a philosophical one. Medical science can outline the development of the fetus but it is up to us to decide what makes a human life. Until we do that, it's unlikely we will ever reach a stable consensus on abortion.

Someone asked why the thanks whoring is an issue. It's because it creates a circlejerk of sniping that only further distances the sides from each other and destroys any reasonable debate on the issue.

There will never be reasonable debate on the issue . It is like the death penalty issue , you are either for it or against it.

liam24

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As far as I can see there are about four different points of view being argued in the abortion debate. You have the radicals on both ends suggesting that live either begins at conception or at birth. Then you have the two moderate positions arguing that life begins at around ten weeks (fetal stage) or 22 weeks (viability) based on development stage. Each person will use the same arguments against the people on either side of them in the scale. They will likely be able to find just as much medical evidence to back up their own view too. But this isn't really a medical issue, it's a philosophical one. Medical science can outline the development of the fetus but it is up to us to decide what makes a human life. Until we do that, it's unlikely we will ever reach a stable consensus on abortion.

Someone asked why the thanks whoring is an issue. It's because it creates a circlejerk of sniping that only further distances the sides from each other and destroys any reasonable debate on the issue.

It's not really a philosophical issue - it's more of a linguistic issue. A human being is whatever we define it to be. People are so uncomfortable with this fact that they run around in circles trying to avoid this fact because of its perceived negative consequences.

swampgas

marienbad wrote: »

There will never be reasonable debate on the issue . It is like the death penalty issue , you are either for it or against it.

And yet people do change their position over time (I did). Usually from pro-life to pro-choice, sometimes the other way, often based on life experiences. However I think that a lot of people have never really heard the arguments for and against properly before, especially younger people.

So there is value in debate, especially after the Y case and the death of Savita Halappanavar, also there is Claire Daly's bill in the Oireachtas and the TV program on Tara on BBC3. It's in the news, and people are talking about it. I certainly don't think everybody's position is set in stone.

Shrap

liam24 wrote: »

It's not really a philosophical issue - it's more of a linguistic issue. A human being is whatever we define it to be. People are so uncomfortable with this fact that they run around in circles trying to avoid this fact because of its perceived negative consequences.

Regardless of whether it's a philosophical issue or a linguistic issue or a scientific issue or a moral issue, women will continue to have abortions as soon as possible after they decide they do not want to be pregnant. Therefore it makes not a whit of difference where or whether we decide a foetus's human life begins, attains personhood or equal right to life. The services still need to be provided. Here.

Ave Sodalis

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As far as I can see there are about four different points of view being argued in the abortion debate. You have the radicals on both ends suggesting that live either begins at conception or at birth. Then you have the two moderate positions arguing that life begins at around ten weeks (fetal stage) or 22 weeks (viability) based on development stage. Each person will use the same arguments against the people on either side of them in the scale. They will likely be able to find just as much medical evidence to back up their own view too. But this isn't really a medical issue, it's a philosophical one. Medical science can outline the development of the fetus but it is up to us to decide what makes a human life. Until we do that, it's unlikely we will ever reach a stable consensus on abortion.

Someone asked why the thanks whoring is an issue. It's because it creates a circlejerk of sniping that only further distances the sides from each other and destroys any reasonable debate on the issue.

Honestly, the only reason I was asking for evidence is because the poster continously stated that everything he said was scientific fact, but refused to find where he got the science from.

And it wasn't thanks whoring I was asking about. It was why one side getting more thanks than others is such a problem for that other side, and why value was placed so much in thanks that the other side (the one that isn't getting as much thanks) consider it a valid argument for their side.

kylith

Shrap wrote: »

Regardless of whether it's a philosophical issue or a linguistic issue or a scientific issue or a moral issue, women will continue to have abortions as soon as possible after they decide they do not want to be pregnant. Therefore it makes not a whit of difference where or whether we decide a foetus's human life begins, attains personhood or equal right to life. The services still need to be provided. Here.

Very true.

Restricting access to abortion does not mean desperate women stop having abortions, it means that they resort to desperate measures which can lead to poisoning, infection and death.

DuffmanGuy

sup_dude wrote: »

No, actual proof would be good enough. As stated by multiple people on here, what you have provided is not proof. All I am requesting is actual proof. Science papers (not quotes from them) that you've read and can discuss. More than one, and full papers.
Stated? What scientists state isn't good enough for me.

I'm not closeminded at all. I'm offering you a chance to prove your point. You won't do that, and instead insist I do it for you or else call me closeminded because I won't accept stuff that proves nothing

Search Google Books for "Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects"

Quote from the first page "Zygote....formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm, represents the beginning of a human being."

I cannot post links. The full book is available for €43. But I guess that still isn't clear or credible enough for you.

Shrap

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Search Google Books for "Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects"

Quote from the first page "Zygote....formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm, represents the beginning of a human being."

I cannot post links. The full book is available for €43. But I guess that still isn't clear or credible enough for you.

Can I ask you why it matters where life begins when women will still want, need, pursue and access abortions when they have crisis pregnancies? Clearly, because this is a reality in all countries, all walks of life, regardless of whether abortion services are readily accessible or not, then safe services should be available so that women die infrequently through botched abortions.

swampgas

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Search Google Books for "Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects"

Quote from the first page "Zygote....formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm, represents the beginning of a human being."

I cannot post links. The full book is available for €43. But I guess that still isn't clear or credible enough for you.

And an egg represents the beginning of a chicken, and a bit of frogspawn is the beginning of a frog. The beginning of something is not that something, it is, as should be blindingly obvious, the beginning of something. You don't have a point and you know it, you're just playing with words.

Which reminds me, can you clarify that when your said earlier that you don't believe in "gods", does that mean you don't beleive in "God" too?

DuffmanGuy

swampgas wrote: »

And an egg represents the beginning of a chicken, and a bit of frogspawn is the beginning of a frog. The beginning of something is not that something, it is, as should be blindingly obvious, the beginning of something. You don't have a point and you know it, you're just playing with words.

Which reminds me, can you clarify that when your said earlier that you don't believe in "gods", does that mean you don't beleive in "God" too?

Irrelevant, as we don't legislate for "gods", or "God", or "the soul".

Little CuChulainn

Shrap wrote: »

Regardless of whether it's a philosophical issue or a linguistic issue or a scientific issue or a moral issue, women will continue to have abortions as soon as possible after they decide they do not want to be pregnant. Therefore it makes not a whit of difference where or whether we decide a foetus's human life begins, attains personhood or equal right to life. The services still need to be provided. Here.

That's a terrible line of logic. You don't legalise something because people will just go abroad to do it otherwise. And until we come to a consensus on when human rights should attach to a fetus, we won't be able to decide what services to offer.

Ave Sodalis

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Search Google Books for "Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects"

Quote from the first page "Zygote....formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm, represents the beginning of a human being."

I cannot post links. The full book is available for €43. But I guess that still isn't clear or credible enough for you.

1) We're not disputing that an egg and sperm fertilise and will eventually turn into a person. We learn that in primary school. It's the inbetween part.

2) One book is not evidence. Go get the evidence that the book uses. Although, it doesn't seem it'll matter because that's not what we're talking about.

3) You can post links

4) Did you read this €43 book?

5) Can we now get back to finding proof that science sees a foetus as a full human? Because you claimed that as scientific fact and aside from "fact" not being a recognisable word in science, you've still to find something on this that's credible.

DuffmanGuy

swampgas wrote: »

And an egg represents the beginning of a chicken, and a bit of frogspawn is the beginning of a frog. The beginning of something is not that something, it is, as should be blindingly obvious, the beginning of something. You don't have a point and you know it, you're just playing with words.

Which reminds me, can you clarify that when your said earlier that you don't believe in "gods", does that mean you don't beleive in "God" too?

I'm not playing with words, I'm quoting directly from a scientific text.
I think you'll find that the beginning of something is that something.

mikom

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Irrelevant, as we don't legislate for "gods", or "God", or "the soul".

Have a Good Friday.....

DuffmanGuy

sup_dude wrote: »

1) We're not disputing that an egg and sperm fertilise and will eventually turn into a person. We learn that in primary school. It's the inbetween part.

2) One book is not evidence. Go get the evidence that the book uses. Although, it doesn't seem it'll matter because that's not what we're talking about.

3) You can post links

4) Did you read this €43 book?

5) Can we now get back to finding proof that science sees a foetus as a full human? Because you claimed that as scientific fact and aside from "fact" not being a recognisable word in science, you've still to find something on this that's credible.

1) Again, you're asking a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
2) I've listed several tests. There are many more if you bother to look.
3) I cannot post links, when I try I get an msg that new users cannot post URLs or images
4) Can you dispute anything in the book?
5) 'Human Being' is description enough.

A Theory is a conclusion based on established scientific facts.

One eyed Jack

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's a terrible line of logic. You don't legalise something because people will just go abroad to do it otherwise. And until we come to a consensus on when human rights should attach to a fetus, we won't be able to decide what services to offer.

Was that not already decided in the Protection of Life Act 2013, that human life begins at implantation as opposed to conception? As far as I remember this was specifically to avoid conflict with RCC doctrine.

I'm really not sure why whatever his name is above is waffling on about scientific consensus and other nonsense. Legislation regarding termination of a pregnancy should have been properly looked at within that framework rather than the legal limbo we ended up with.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

Professor Greene of Harvard, an expert in HIV , found where only contraception ie condoms were promoted, it didn't lower the HIV rate.
Where there was success, it was found promoting abstaining from sex till one was older caused the biggest decrease, next was being monogamous and finally the contraception.

The same problem exists with crisis pregnancies, a society which treats sex as something you have before a certain age, sleep around before you find someone you want to spend your life with, which also leads to the high STI rate of infection, abortion is an option if you pregnant if contraception fails, which makes the abortion a result of contraception and which most abortions are.
There are a lot of irresponsible people having sex who then get into a panic when they get pregnant.
The message promoted by the media/film/tv and so on is one for a liberal sexual freedom. Nothing about the consequences.

Actually Professor Greene clarified his comments which were taken out of context. Pope Benedict said that condoms had not been of any use in stopping the spread of aids. Greene said that he believed that condom use encouraged risky behaviour. And that the increase in risky behaviour caused more transmissions.
This actually flies against every other expert who states that overall there has been a decrease. It also ignores the fact that it is even riskier to have sex without a condom.
It's like saying that crash helmets/seatbelts cause accidents because people wear them when they're on a motorcycle/car. If people didn't wear them then they would be far more careful and there's be far less crashes. There's logic in there somewhere. Not much but just enough to make it look like an argument.
Greene did say to his credit that condoms should be used but he felt that abstaining and/or being faithful to a partner is safer.

Ave Sodalis

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

1) Again, you're asking a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
2) I've listed several tests. There are many more if you bother to look.
3) I cannot post links, when I try I get an msg that new users cannot post URLs or images
4) Can you dispute anything in the book?
5) 'Human Being' is description enough.

A Theory is a conclusion based on established scientific facts.

1) You were the one who said in was scientific fact.
2) No you haven't.
3) The limit is 50 posts, afaik
4) Why would I read it when the person who posted it didn't?
5) "beginnings" being the key word, I'd have thought.

There is no such thing as scientific fact. A theory is as close to fact as you can get

kylith

sup_dude wrote: »

1)
3) The limit is 50 posts, afaik

One can also get around the limit by putting breaks in the address

www.hot mail.com

For example. Those who wish to follow the link can then simply copy and paste it into their address bar and remove the space.

DuffmanGuy

sup_dude wrote: »

1) You were the one who said in was scientific fact.
2) No you haven't.
3) The limit is 50 posts, afaik
4) Why would I read it when the person who posted it didn't?
5) "beginnings" being the key word, I'd have thought.

There is no such thing as scientific fact. A theory is as close to fact as you can get

1) Nope, I said "The science of biology is clear - All mammals begin life with fertilisation."
2) Re-read my posts, I listed several references yesterday
3) There are further limits for new users
4) Why would you read it? To inform yourself and gain new knowledge.
5) Definition of Beginnings: "the first part or earliest stage of something". No distinction from that 'something'.

You'd better contact the AAAS and correct them...

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

DuffmanGuy

Thanks for the heads-up! kylith

swampgas

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Irrelevant, as we don't legislate for "gods", or "God", or "the soul".

I'll take that as a yes.

swampgas

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

I'm not playing with words, I'm quoting directly from a scientific text.
I think you'll find that the beginning of something is that something.

You can keep saying that the beginning of something is the same as that thing until you're blue in the face, it won't make it any more true.

Is an acorn an oak tree? Apparently when pro-life logic is used, it is the same thing.

sunshine and showers

RobertKK wrote: »

No, we had our last referendum involving abortion in 2002 where Dana and Ivana bacik were on the same side.

They were on the same side for very different reasons.

Bacik was against overturning X and restricting abortion.

Dana was against it because it only gave protection to an embryo from the point of implantation as opposed to conception. She claimed the bill was really "pro-abortion" as it would essentially decriminalise the morning after pill.

Akrasia

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

I'm not playing with words, I'm quoting directly from a scientific text.
I think you'll find that the beginning of something is that something.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" does not equal 'A Tale of Two Cities'

A fertilised egg does not equal a fully developed human being.