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

liam24

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So it is an argument of convenience rather than one containing any actual intellectual rigor or ethical foundation. Your choice of cut off point for abortion is founded on nothing more than wanting to remove a debate that is personally distasteful to you.

Fair enough I guess, I wanted to understand where you were coming from. Now I do. Perhaps we should allow murder and theft too. Would remove all those pesky and costly court hearing and trials and jury duty. All to make life intellectually easier I guess.

Bringing morals into a debate on abortion is counter-productive and pointless. It is intellectually dishonest to champion a woman's right to choose, and then tell her that she doesn't have the right any more after an arbitrary cut off point.

Murder and theft are illegal for the common good.

nozzferrahhtoo

liam24 wrote: »

Bringing morals into a debate on abortion is counter-productive and pointless. It is intellectually dishonest to champion a woman's right to choose, and then tell her that she doesn't have the right any more after an arbitrary cut off point.

Then you merely choose the path of intellectual lazyness and justify it by calling things counter productive that are actually not. A path I could not myself take.

As I said I have no interest in reasoning with you about a position you do not appear to have reasoned yourself into. I merely wanted to know what the basis for your position was, you have made it clear as I asked, so I am content. Thanks for your time.

DuffmanGuy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This does not appear on first glance to be truth. Where is it? What is the post number? I just now went over every post you made yesterday following my own and all of them are either replying to people who are not me, or replying to things I never said. Not one appears to be a reply to me.

Given your inability to use the quote function correctly, is it possible you are mixing me up for someone else, someone who you did reply to in actuality?



You are the last person who has any pedestal on this thread to accuse other people of ignoring anything. Especially falsely. Given you "conveniently ignored" my entire post and everything in it. Then. And now. I have ignored nothing. You have. But forums do seem to be a playground for people accusing others of actions that in fact they and they alone are doing.



Again accusing people of doing what only you are doing. I never claimed a biological human is not human. Anywhere. Ever. You have merely constructed that falsehood and are now attempting to insert it into my mouth.

Perhaps attempt to reply to BOTH my posts, instead of ignoring one, and this time reply to the things I ACTUALLY said, rather than things you have simply invented on my behalf.

Then I can construct a more useful reply to you.

My Post # 689 was addressing your questions.
Regarding my misquoting you as saying that a zygote isn't human, my bad. I was referencing your post:
"I would say that the human fetus is a stage in the human life cycle. However to throw out the word "alive" and then jump from there to "rights" and "legal protection" or to make any moral or ethical statements about it.... is too much a leap"
You do however seem to object to use of the word 'Alive' for a zygote which is clearly alive. By all biological standards she is alive.
Interesting departure from biological fact.

liam24

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then you merely choose the path of intellectual lazyness and justify it by calling things counter productive that are actually not. A path I could not myself take.

As I said I have no interest in reasoning with you about a position you do not appear to have reasoned yourself into. I merely wanted to know what the basis for your position was, you have made it clear as I asked, so I am content. Thanks for your time.

My position is based entirely on reason. Intellectual laziness includes failing to follow your principles through to their logical conclusion. You either believe in a woman's right to choose or you don't. There is no innate quality in human beings that makes them human. Human beings are what we define them to be. So we can define human life as beginning at a convenient point. The abortion debate goes on and on because there's no clarity on the issue - it's all fuzziness.

Paddy Samurai

I think people are missing the whole point of this thread.
The most important question been raised here is "Is Tara the Devil?"
Using the french legal system "Guilty untill proven innocent".I think we can all agree that she is,as she does not provide any proof in the article that she is'nt.I mean not once in ths article does she even bother to deny that she is the Devil.
Case closed!.

liam24

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

I think people are missing the whole point of this thread.
The most important question been raised here is "Is Tara the Devil?"
Using the french legal system "Guilty untill proven innocent".I think we can all agree that she is,as she does not provide any proof in the article that she is'nt.I mean not once in ths article does she even bother to deny that she is the Devil.
Case closed!.

She's not the devil, but she is a braindead bimbo.

smash

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

You do however seem to object to use of the word 'Alive' for a zygote which is clearly alive. By all biological standards she is alive.

Ok, just stop this pleases... We entertained you before with the whole "We all start out as female" debate, but that's only before fertilisation.

The male gametes or sperm cells in humans and other mammals are heterogametic and contain one of two types of sex chromosomes. They are either X or Y. The female gametes or eggs however, contain only the X sex chromosome and are homogametic. The sperm cell determines the sex of an individual in this case. If a sperm cell containing an X chromosome fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote will be XX or female. If the sperm cell contains a Y chromosome, then the resulting zygote will be XY or male.

smash

liam24 wrote: »

She's not the devil, but she is a braindead bimbo.

Why?

DuffmanGuy

smash wrote: »

You're misquoting everyone here. Nobody denied that it's human(in that it contains human DNA). What we have denied is the statement you keep making as fact which is that a zygote is "fully a human being". Which it is not.

I've already cited literature which states that a zygote evolves to become both a foetus and a placenta. Is a placenta fully a human?

A human zygote can only be Fully a Human Being. She isn't partially any other species. The Zygote becomes a blastocyst, the blastocyst creates the placenta.

nozzferrahhtoo

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

My Post # 689 was addressing your questions.

Hardly. The entire content of that particular post either repeats what I said in mine without addressing it, or addresses things I never said. For example "To question whether a zygote is 'Living' or not is not even debatable" is something that simply has nothing to do with my post _at all_ much like above when you misrepresented me as saying "a biological human is not human".

At this point, given you are a new user with no posting history to go on to check what your MO usually is, I have to reserve judgement on whether you are willfully misrepresenting me, or simply failing somehow to understand me at all.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

You do however seem to object to use of the word 'Alive' for a zygote which is clearly alive. By all biological standards she is alive. Interesting departure from biological fact.

There is no departure from fact so much as, once again, a departure from what I actually said by you. I will repeat my point and use smaller words and sentences on the "benefit of the doubt" assumption the failure is mine in communicating with you, and not yours in being honest about what I actually said.

I have NO issue with the use of the word "Alive" and "Human" at all. None. The issue I have is that we use these words in many ways, in many contexts, with many meanings and intents.

And a common tactic I see linguistically from the anti choice campaigners, and one which appears to permeate your posts, is a willful conflation of these meanings into one.

That is, as soon as such a campaigner manages to find a way to apply the words "Human" and "Alive" in _any way at all_ (In your case with appears to biological sciences).... they then leap from there to smuggling in _all_ the meanings those words have across the board.

And as I said in the text you just quoted from me, to jump from the application of those words in their most basic sense, to moral, ethical and legal conclusions.... is just that. A leap.

I simply do not think it is that easy. Having called the zygote "human" and assigned it as some kind of "Beginning" in a cyclical life cycle.... you appear to act like this it the conversation over. I think it is the conversation JUST beginning.

And comically, the "paper" you first cited to support this said _exactly_ that too. So the very author you used to try and support your line here, actually makes the point for me that I am trying to make for you now. One fears you may be merely cherry picking said author where it suits, and merely ignoring what does not. Which again erodes, as I said above, your credibility to (falsely as it happens) accuse others of doing the ignoring on this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

liam24 wrote: »

My position is based entirely on reason.

If you say so. But I asked you for the "reason" and you merely said your cut off point was selected to remove another debate. That is not "Reason" to me. It is an intellectually bankrupt and lazy argument from convenience and little more.

If there is "reason" behind your cut off point choice, then I asked for it, and you have not yet offered it.

smash

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

A human zygote can only be Fully a Human Being. She isn't partially any other species. The Zygote becomes a blastocyst, the blastocyst creates the placenta.

This is bullshít. It's an amoeba! It contains the exact same DNA as a blood cell, yet a blood cell is not fully a human being!

DuffmanGuy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hardly. The entire content of that particular post either repeats what I said in mine without addressing it, or addresses things I never said. For example "To question whether a zygote is 'Living' or not is not even debatable" is something that simply has nothing to do with my post _at all_ much like above when you misrepresented me as saying "a biological human is not human".

At this point, given you are a new user with no posting history to go on to check what your MO usually is, I have to reserve judgement on whether you are willfully misrepresenting me, or simply failing somehow to understand me at all.



There is no departure from fact so much as, once again, a departure from what I actually said by you. I will repeat my point and use smaller words and sentences on the "benefit of the doubt" assumption the failure is mine in communicating with you, and not yours in being honest about what I actually said.

I have NO issue with the use of the word "Alive" and "Human" at all. None. The issue I have is that we use these words in many ways, in many contexts, with many meanings and intents.

And a common tactic I see linguistically from the anti choice campaigners, and one which appears to permeate your posts, is a willful conflation of these meanings into one.

That is, as soon as such a campaigner manages to find a way to apply the words "Human" and "Alive" in _any way at all_ (In your case with appears to biological sciences).... they then leap from there to smuggling in _all_ the meanings those words have across the board.

And as I said in the text you just quoted from me, to jump from the application of those words in their most basic sense, to moral, ethical and legal conclusions.... is just that. A leap.

I simply do not think it is that easy. Having called the zygote "human" and assigned it as some kind of "Beginning" in a cyclical life cycle.... you appear to act like this it the conversation over. I think it is the conversation JUST beginning.

And comically, the "paper" you first cited to support this said _exactly_ that too. So the very author you used to try and support your line here, actually makes the point for me that I am trying to make for you now. One fears you may be merely cherry picking said author where it suits, and merely ignoring what does not. Which again erodes, as I said above, your credibility to (falsely as it happens) accuse others of doing the ignoring on this thread.

Here's where you object to the term Human referring to a zygote:
"There appears to be some move by them to establish the zygote as "Human"".

You have ignored the other references I posted, which clearly answer your opinion that "we do not currently have a scientific answer to this where a distinct line is drawn in the ground".
You keep repeating that I havent addressed any of your question, when I clearly have.

DuffmanGuy

smash wrote: »

This is bullshít. It's an amoeba! It contains the exact same DNA as a blood cell, yet a blood cell is not fully a human being!

A zygote isn't an Amoeba.
A Blood cell is not self-determining, or on a developmental path.

volchitsa

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

A human zygote can only be Fully a Human Being. She isn't partially any other species. The Zygote becomes a blastocyst, the blastocyst creates the placenta.

What is the placenta's origin - does it grow from the mother's genetic material or does it arise from the fertilized egg?

nozzferrahhtoo

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Here's where you object to the term Human referring to a zygote:
"There appears to be some move by them to establish the zygote as "Human"".

That is called quote mining. You take that sentence out of the entire post and everything I said before it and after it, and you can misread it pretty much any way you want. Misrepresentation 101 stuff there so perhaps my benefit of the doubt was not well founded.

Again, as that post said, and as the post before this one to you clarified and ramified, my issue is not with them establishing the Zygote as Human but as "Human".

That is to say: While it is clearly biologically human, the linguistic trick I am taking issue with is that following the application of the word Human, further connotations of that word are implied in ways that are not warranted.

Or put even simpler for you: Even establishing the Zygote as Human and as a "beginning" and even if we start discourse from that point, you have yet said _precisely_ nothing relevant to the debate on abortion. At all.

I honestly have no idea how to make it any clearer than that, but I am agog to hear how I will be misrepresented next.

DuffmanGuy

volchitsa wrote: »

What is the placenta's origin - does it grow from the mother's genetic material or does it arise from the fertilized egg?

It arises from the blastocyst, which is multi-cell, not single cell like a zygote.

smash

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

A Blood cell is not self-determining, or on a developmental path.

It contains the exact same DNA as a zygote. Your whole argument changes constantly to suit your posts.

You state that a zygote is fully a human because it contains full human DNA. I state that it's as much "fully human" as a blood cell based on your reasoning. You then change your reasoning...

sunshine and showers

bjork wrote: »

You ended your post with a prayer "Dear God"

You need to read my posts again if you came to the conclusion of "thats what I think",.
Being raped has being compared equally to going on holidays in this thread and to be honest it's quite sick, but that's how some peoples mind works

That wasn't a prayer, that was a sign of exasperation. I'm seriously hoping you're joking.

Also, that is what you said. You said you know how contraception works, which is why you're "not in the queue for an abortion". Lots of people who "know how contraception works" have had abortions. Because contraception fails, even when it's used completely correctly.

DuffmanGuy

smash wrote: »

It contains the exact same DNA as a zygote. Your whole argument changes constantly to suit your posts.

You state that a zygote is fully a human because it contains full human DNA. I state that it's as much "fully human" as a blood cell based on your reasoning. You then change your reasoning...

I 've changed nothing.
- A fully human Blood -cell is a Blood Cell.
- A fully human zygote is a fully human being.

DuffmanGuy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is called quote mining. You take that sentence out of the entire post and everything I said before it and after it, and you can misread it pretty much any way you want. Misrepresentation 101 stuff there so perhaps my benefit of the doubt was not well founded.

Again, as that post said, and as the post before this one to you clarified and ramified, my issue is not with them establishing the Zygote as Human but as "Human".

That is to say: While it is clearly biologically human, the linguistic trick I am taking issue with is that following the application of the word Human, further connotations of that word are implied in ways that are not warranted.

Or put even simpler for you: Even establishing the Zygote as Human and as a "beginning" and even if we start discourse from that point, you have yet said _precisely_ nothing relevant to the debate on abortion. At all.

I honestly have no idea how to make it any clearer than that, but I am agog to hear how I will be misrepresented next.

There's no misrepresentation - it seems clear that once biologically human, other connotations of the word 'Human' are implied.
When you say "There appears to be some move by them to establish the zygote as "Human", you didn't make clear which other meanings you are referring to, and imply that 'they' have a different opinion from you.

smash

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

I 've changed nothing.
- A fully human Blood -cell is a Blood Cell.
- A fully human zygote is a fully human being.

No it's not. It's a fully human zygote, not a fully human being. Much like a canine zygote is a canine zygote, not a dog.

One eyed Jack

liam24 wrote: »

My position is based entirely on reason.

Your position is based entirely on obfuscation and waffle - "If you can't baffle people with science, blind them with bullshìt". My old man was famous for it, and it took me a while to train myself to spot the fallacies in his arguments.

Intellectual laziness includes failing to follow your principles through to their logical conclusion.

You haven't followed your principles through to their logical conclusion here. You're using all manner of semantics to support an untenable position, trying to force the burden of proof onto everyone else to prove you wrong, rather than you having to come up with any evidence (scientific or otherwise) that says even have a point!

You either believe in a woman's right to choose or you don't. There is no innate quality in human beings that makes them human.

Not sure what the second sentence has to do with the first, but there are many innate qualities in human beings that make them human as distinct from other life forms.

Human beings are what we define them to be.

It's not quite that simple. There has to be a common arbitrary definition of what constitutes a human being before you can argue about human rights.

So we can define human life as beginning at a convenient point. The abortion debate goes on and on because there's no clarity on the issue - it's all fuzziness.

As it stands, the Irish Constitution defines human life as beginning at implantation. That definition describes human life as it applies to the unborn, and IS the convenient point you speak of, though that point is inconvenient for the RCC Hierarchy who defines conception as the convenient point. The RCC Hierarchy, as much as they would like to, do not represent the views of every citizen of the Irish State. They can only claim to represent the opinions of their congregation, and even then they're pushing it.

The only fuzziness appears when people try to muddy the waters by introducing spurious and irrelevant arguments based on nothing but nonsense and making it up as they go along, as you're attempting to do. You're running people around in circles and throwing out the first thing that comes off the top of your head, as it's clear from your posts that you haven't given this issue much thought.

The lack of clarity is your responsibility, caused by your misunderstanding of reason and logical argument. You're tying yourself up in knots trying to argue using flawed logic to distract from the issue of abortion by arguing about the point at which human life begins, when that point has already been defined in the Irish Constitution.

Shrap

smash wrote: »

No it's not. It's a fully human zygote, not a fully human being. Much like a canine zygote is a canine zygote, not a dog.

Yes. And in terms of consciousness, intelligence, nervous system, potential for survival, humanity and caninity, the two different zygotes have more in common with each other at that stage than either of them have with the developed/born stage of their own species.

volchitsa

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

It arises from the blastocyst, which is multi-cell, not single cell like a zygote.

Yeah, and what? Does it have any origin other than the single-celled zygote, and before that the sperm and egg from which the zygote came?

In other words, when you say human life occurs at conception, because that's when the "unique genetic combination" occurs, you are in effect saying that the zygote is a human being. So what makes the resulting embryo a "person" but the placenta "not a person"?

Or are you saying that fertilization is not when a new person occurs, and that this occurs when the zygote has reached the stage of blastocyst? Is that in any biology books?

sunshine and showers

I'd just like to point out that the Irish Constitution does not define when life begins. It makes reference to defending the rights of the unborn.

What is meant by "the unborn" and when life begins (conception, implantation or other) has never been looked at by the Irish courts.

OldNotWIse

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that the Irish Constitution does not define when life begins. It makes reference to defending the rights of the unborn.

What is meant by "the unborn" and when life begins (conception, implantation or other) has never been looked at by the Irish courts.

Are you sure? I might be wrong but I seem to recall there being a case where they were asked this and they said it began at implantation. Perhaps it was a case related to assisted reproduction and disposal of embryos? I need to check, sorry!

I found this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1115/82562-embryo/

Where they said the right to life does not extend to embryos outside the womb.

Edit: sorry, in that case they said the embryos were not classified as unborn and therefore they did not have to make a decision on when life begins.

One eyed Jack

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

I 've changed nothing.
- A fully human Blood -cell is a Blood Cell.
- A fully human zygote is a fully human being.

- A blood cell is a blood cell
- A zygote is a zygote

None of your "fully human" nonsense.

Morag

RobertKK wrote: »

That would be you. Peter Boylan was on Newstalk last year talking about the dangers of taking these pills unsupervised and how women appear for treatment when they are suffering from things like excessive bleeding.

there are two ways the pills can be administered one is insertion into the vagina and the other is to be held in the mouth and dissolved. There is only the issue Dr Boylan mentioned of perforation is only an issue if they are inserted which both women on web and womenhelp do not instruct women to do.

volchitsa

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that the Irish Constitution does not define when life begins. It makes reference to defending the rights of the unborn.

What is meant by "the unborn" and when life begins (conception, implantation or other) has never been looked at by the Irish courts.

I think that is not quite true, though I don't know at what level it has been decided - but current legislation does state somewhere that implantation is the point from which the unborn "entity" is protected. That was the conclusion reached when there was some attempt by Catholic groups to get IVF procedures banned too. Though you are probably still partly right, in that iirc the decision was that the ban on abortion didn't apply to IVF embryos (since you can't abort an unimplanted embryo) rather than anything so logical as taking a decision about the status of the embryo itself.

The whole constitutional stance on abortion is completely illogical anyway. It's probably impossible to get a logical interpretation of it, no matter how hard you try. Because it's based on catholic theology, not on science.