The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

MayoSalmon

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The unborn what?

Have a think..

SafeSurfer

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The unborn what?

Pro choice to do what?

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Pro choice to do what?

To have the choice available

January

Jesus you'd swear this was a conversation between 6 year olds, not grown men and women.

gctest50

January wrote: »

Jesus you'd swear this was a conversation between 6 year olds, not grown men and women.

It's the same old trick you'd see across threads here and elsewhere

- try get the thread closed if they get caught out misleading

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe you missed the bit on the Wikipedia page where it says "as currently published by the World Medical Association". .

https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/



.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next the unborn will be looking for rights.

Ooh, very clever. :rolleyes:

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

January wrote: »

Jesus you'd swear this was a conversation between 6 year olds, not grown men and women.

It's the same old trick you'd see across threads here and elsewhere

- try get the thread closed if they get caught out misleading

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

Don't misrepresent me. That is the original 1948 text.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Don't misrepresent me. That is the original 1948 text.

You either :

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice


this is what you said :

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva,

which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

no mention of any other version


The Declaration of Geneva

like The Queen of England or The Pope






It's like saying the Pope was a footballer, then being caught out and going " no no not Pope Benny , Pope John Paul"

PopePalpatine

Weirdly enough, the top result on Google after searching for "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception" is for a circumcision body, and the top result on DuckDuckGo is from "God's Word To Women".

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Don't misrepresent me. That is the original 1948 text.

You either :

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice


this is what you said :

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva,

which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

no mention of any other version


The Declaration of Geneva

like The Queen of England or The Pope






It's like saying the Pope was a footballer, then being caught out and going " no no not Pope Benny , Pope John Paul"

Yes, like the pope following WW2 or the king following WW2.

The third possibility (c) is that I stated "from the declaration of Geneva which updated the oath following WW2"

I referenced the declaration, note small d, from which I was quoting, which is the original declaration and contains the exact phrase that I quoted.

When you dismissed this as untrue with the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva I suggested you missed the Wikipedia page text where it says this is the amended version.

So again I would ask you not to accuse me of deliberately trying to mislead because you misunderstood.

SafeSurfer

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Weirdly enough, the top result on Google after searching for "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception" is for a circumcision body, and the top result on DuckDuckGo is from "God's Word To Women".

The top results I got from both Google and DuckDuckGo when searching for

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception

was the Geneva Declaration.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva ......

Again trying to make it look like it was done yesterday (14th October 2017 revision ),

been like that for years (since the 2005 revision )

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva ......

Again trying to make it look like it was done yesterday (14th October 2017 revision ),

been like that for years (since the 2005 revision )

Where did I try to make it look like it was amended yesterday? Really, you have boxed yourself into a corner and are now you just being silly.

It's ok if you are too embarrassed to admit you misunderstood. The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..............

The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

Now we're getting somewhere

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice

( and reference vaguely )

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.... I suggested you missed the Wikipedia page text where it says this is the amended version. .....

It doesn't say "this is the amended version "

It says " Retrieved 14 October 2017 "

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

I don't see what you are finding so difficult to comprehend.

If I referenced the constitution following 1937 as opposed to the "present day" constitution most people wouldn't go all "conspiracy theory", cross between Jessica Fletcher and Colombo on it.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

................

SafeSurfer wrote: »

because it has been amended many times. .............

Why make some odd reference to the 1948 version of Declaration of Geneva when you knew it had been amended many times ?

Sweetemotion

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately we need to move away from this idea that a medical professional's obligation is to protect life at all costs.

Their role is to facilitate the best interests of their patient, physically, mentally and emotionally.

And if someone is unable or unwilling to accept that, then they should pick another career.

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

you do make the most ridiculous false equivalences.

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Why make some odd reference to the 1948 version of Declaration of Geneva when you knew it had been amended many times ?

gctest50, I don't want to turn this thread into a ping pong match between you and me. I referenced the 1948 declaration because this was an attempt to agree an updated Hippocratic oath in the aftermath of WW2.
We were discussing the Hippocratic Oath when you argued
"the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"
The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity in their updated Hippocratic Oath where the agreed text was

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

You question my bringing up an unambiguous 1948 text in my argument but I will not question your right to bring up a 2000 year old Greek text which could be interpreted as being opposed to abortion, which is the consensus, or opposed to only one method of abortion which is your view.

So there you have it. I think its about time we gave this thread back to other contributors. If you want any clarification feel free to pm.

gctest50

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

......

Should women check themselves into a nice safe locked ward the minute they find out they are pregnant ?

A ward has to be safer than all that driving around and lifting stuff like

frag420

So you are ok with amendments then?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

I don't see what you are finding so difficult to comprehend.

If I referenced the constitution following 1937 as opposed to the "present day" constitution most people wouldn't go all "conspiracy theory", cross between Jessica Fletcher and Colombo on it.

Sweetemotion

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do make the most ridiculous false equivalences.

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

Both wont survive.

SafeSurfer

frag420 wrote: »

So you are ok with amendments then?

Of course, amendments are necessary to maintain relevance. The right to life is always relevant.
It is a question of competing rights. In my view.

The right not to be killed supersedes the right not to be pregnant.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

Both wont survive.

you think a 1 year old would be left to fend for itself if the mother couldn't? You have heard of social services, right? Sometimes i think you anti-choice people dont live in the real world

Sweetemotion

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think a 1 year old would be left to fend for itself if the mother couldn't? You have heard of social services, right? Sometimes i think you anti-choice people dont live in the real world

There is also adoption.

Tigger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think a 1 year old would be left to fend for itself if the mother couldn't? You have heard of social services, right? Sometimes i think you anti-choice people dont live in the real world

anti choice ?
anti rash decisions more like

ohnonotgmail

Tigger wrote: »

anti choice ?
anti rash decisions more like

why must a decision on abortion be rash?

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

There is also adoption.

there is. and?

Delirium

Tigger wrote: »

anti choice ?
anti rash decisions more like

Yes, because no pregnant person in the world ever makes a considered and thought out choice regarding having an abortion :rolleyes::rolleyes: