nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Absolam

Must it be some degree of unborn?

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

Must it be some degree of unborn?

Quid Pro Quo.

Deleted User wrote: »

How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Quid Pro Quo.

Hardly....

Cabaal

Sure while we're at it we'll call sperm half an unborn child or half a potential unborn child, sure might as well since some insist in throwing silly terms about. Might as well add yet another silly term to the list.

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

Hardly....

You appeared to attempt to answer my question with a question of your own.

I'll do you the favour of answering that question if and when you address mine.

Deleted User wrote: »

How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Sure while we're at it we'll call sperm half an unborn child or half a potential unborn child, sure might as well since some insist in throwing silly terms about. Might as well add yet another silly term to the list.

I suspect doing so wouldn't add anything to your pro-choice position, but sure... knock yourself out!

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

You appeared to attempt to answer my question with a question of your own. I'll do you the favour of answering that question if and when you address mine.

Oh, I wasn't attempting to answer it. It seems to me that if you can't establish that an unborn child must be some degree of unborn to be called an unborn child, then how unborn it has to be to be called an unborn child is a nonsensical question.

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I wasn't attempting to answer it.

Shock horror

Absolam wrote: »

It seems to me that if you can't establish that an unborn child must be some degree of unborn to be called an unborn child, then how unborn it has to be to be called an unborn child is a nonsensical question.

On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Shock horror On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

That doesn't seem to establish that an unborn child must be some degree of unborn to be called an unborn child, only that on an atomic level everything is composed of atoms.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Shock horror

On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

...I'm waiting for Absolam to come back with some nonsense that because we are all atoms we are all unborn children

Of course more likely he'll answer a question with a question or simply question dodge like usual.

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

That doesn't seem to establish that an unborn child must be some degree of unborn to be called an unborn child, only that on an atomic level everything is composed of atoms.

It's not seeking to establish anything.

I'm trying to understand what you deem reasonable to earn explicitly the moniker of 'unborn child' given that on an atomic level everything is so.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?

Something I've been trying to figure out myself, so I put a small poll up to see what people think.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

...I'm waiting for Absolam to come back with some nonsense that because we are all atoms we are all unborn children

Of course more likely he'll answer a question with a question or simply question dodge like usual.

Still offering opinions on other peoples behalf I see

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not seeking to establish anything.
I'm trying to understand what you deem reasonable to earn explicitly the moniker of 'unborn child' given that on an atomic level everything is so.

How exactly is it given?

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

How exactly is it given?

You were asked this question

Deleted User wrote: »

On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

which should help you get to the answer of the question you are now asking.

frag420

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect doing so wouldn't add anything to your pro-choice position, but sure... knock yourself one out!

FYP:D

Do anti choice/abortion folks believe that all sperm are sacred?

And if sperm is seen as half a child and/or sacred then should I keep the sock beside my bed warm and damp to incubate them until such time as they can be forcibly implanted into a human woman or am I ok to let it go as I will be doing my daily top up before I sleep tonight (it helps my insomnia)

Just curious??

eviltwin

frag420 wrote: »

FYP:D

Do anti choice/abortion folks believe that all sperm are sacred?

And if sperm is seen as half a child and/or sacred then should I keep the sock beside my bed warm and damp to incubate them until such time as they can be forcibly implanted into a human woman or am I ok to let it go as I will be doing my daily top up before I sleep tonight (it helps my insomnia)

Just curious??

I wonder the same things about my eggs, or is that potential children? I could have another one or two but choose not to. Are we depriving some potential people of life by not having more children. After all, one of those kids could grow up to find the cure for cancer :eek:

nozzferrahhtoo

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder the same things about my eggs, or is that potential children? I could have another one or two but choose not to. Are we depriving some potential people of life by not having more children. After all, one of those kids could grow up to find the cure for cancer :eek:

Potential is a wonderful thing. Forget sperm and egg cells. Given the advances in technology we are pretty much coming to a point where any cell in your body is a "potential human being" if treated correctly in a lab.

I scratched the inside of my nose today. I pretty much committed a holocaust of potential human beings while doing so.

The only thing I tend to say to the anti choice brigade when they call something a "potential" human or "potential" person is that they have done little other than tell me the thing they are talking about is not a human or a person. Because you can not be X and a potential X at the same time. Something is either X or it is not X. And the moment you call it a "potential" X.... you have simply said it is not X.

Cabaal

frag420 wrote: »

FYP:D

Do anti choice/abortion folks believe that all sperm are sacred?

Has to be done!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

Has to be done!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

I'm surprised it took this long.

MrP

aloyisious

Emmet: I suspect you're in for an Absolam omnibus.

Listening to Colm O'Gorman and Cora Sherlock this morning, the battle-lines over the convention seem drawn. Cora seem's sure the Govt will use the convention to bring abortion into general legal use here outside the existing limits of POLDPA via a referendum. Unfortunately for her, the only way to get a Govt on her side would be a governmental alliance between FF and SF, both apparently being firmly opposed to abortion being made legal here outside the POLDPA borders.

Colm seem's to believe there will be a major struggle to get a successful repeal the 8th referendum vote. Personally, I reckon that nothing should be taken for granted about the 8th being repealed. I'd prefer being pessimistic and waking up surprised with a majority referendum vote to repeal than being optimistic and waking up with the 8th still in legal situ. It'll be the mother of all battles with foreign influence being brought to bear on keeping the status quo.

It might all depend on whether the referendum is held this year or next year to decide the matter.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

You were asked this question
which should help you get to the answer of the question you are now asking.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't; you're claiming it's a given that on an atomic level everything is an unborn child, but you're not saying how that is a given. Nor can I see how that establishes that an unborn child must be some degree of unborn to be called an unborn child, so you're not exactly moving towards establishing a basis for your question "How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?".

Given the rather vague way you're responding, I have a feeling this is going to add nothing to the debate; indeed it may already be descending into the kind of vague, unctuous, tedious, word splitting vacuous waffle which makes Robindch so very testy.
So if you're not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question, we can probably resign ourselves to the fact that it will go unanswered.

Absolam

frag420 wrote: »

FYP:D

Nah, you didn't. You just altered it in order to mock....

frag420 wrote: »

Do anti choice/abortion folks believe that all sperm are sacred?

You'll have to find one to ask them I'd say... but as far as I know the concept can be attributed to a Monthy Python sketch mocking Catholic opposition to contraception, so it seems unlikely that anyone anywhere believes all sperm are sacred. If someone does, I imagine they'll correct me.

frag420 wrote: »

And if sperm is seen as half a child and/or sacred then should I keep the sock beside my bed warm and damp to incubate them until such time as they can be forcibly implanted into a human woman or am I ok to let it go as I will be doing my daily top up before I sleep tonight (it helps my insomnia)

Sounds like you're leaping to a conclusion from an assumption there. Whilst your nocturnal habits are no doubt enormously fascinating to you, and may be of some concern to whoever might be unfortunate enough to find themselves in the vicinity of the results (unlikely as that may be), they're probably not a subject anyone on boards is likely to want to discuss, so you're probably ok keeping that particular struggle to yourself.

frag420 wrote: »

Just curious??

Possibly, but I wouldn't be inclined to opine.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Has to be done!

Well, at least you found the source of frag420's angst. I shudder to think how much stiffer his socks will be as a result.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Cora seem's sure the Govt will use the convention to bring abortion into general legal use here outside the existing limits of POLDPA via a referendum.

Oh NO, the people amending the constitution via the valid constitutional arrangements!!! Ban this sick filth!

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

It might all depend on whether the referendum is held this year or next year to decide the matter.

Why?

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

No, I'm afraid it doesn't; you're claiming it's a given that on an atomic level everything is an unborn child, but you're not saying how that is a given. .

Correct. I asked you what was not an unborn child. If you can answer that, then what was posted after that might not follow. In fact it might be nonsense.

Deleted User wrote:

On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

If you had answered this question at the time perhaps we wouldn't be this far down the path yet. I will pause and allow you to answer it before continuing.

Absolam wrote: »

Nor can I see how that establishes that an unborn child must be some degree of unborn to be called an unborn child, so you're not exactly moving towards establishing a basis for your question "How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?".

Well given that the question above which you still haven't answered could give us a very important finding here - that there are an absolutely enormous number of things that are indeed technically 'unborn children', then you can understand why I'm trying to be a bit more precise than simply using the moniker as an atomic scientist could if they so wished choose to.

Absolam wrote: »

Given the rather vague way you're responding, I have a feeling this is going to add nothing to the debate; indeed it may already be descending into the kind of vague, unctuous, tedious, word splitting vacuous waffle which makes Robindch so very testy.
So if you're not presenting a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question, we can probably resign ourselves to the fact that it will go unanswered.

The fingers in the ears approach never really gets anywhere does it?

I think I've been quite clear in my line of questioning, certainly not vague whatsoever.

Deleted User wrote: »

How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?

Deleted User wrote: »

...
On an atomic level, what isn't an unborn child?

Deleted User wrote: »

...
I'm trying to understand what you deem reasonable to earn explicitly the moniker of 'unborn child' given that on an atomic level everything is so.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct. I asked you what was not an unborn child. If you can answer that, then what was posted after that might not follow. In fact it might be nonsense. If you had answered this question at the time perhaps we wouldn't be this far down the path yet. I will pause and allow you to answer it before continuing.
Well given that the question above which you still haven't answered could give us a very important finding here - that there are an absolutely enormous number of things that are indeed technically 'unborn children', then you can understand why I'm trying to be a bit more precise than simply using the moniker as an atomic scientist could if they so wished choose to.
The fingers in the ears approach never really gets anywhere does it?
I think I've been quite clear in my line of questioning, certainly not vague whatsoever.

You know, none of that actually sounds like you're even trying to present a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question... you just seem to be going further down that vague, unctuous, tedious, word splitting vacuous waffle avenue. Oh well.

[Deleted User]

Isn't that old tactic of 'make no statements, defend no assertions, can never be shown to be wrong if all you ever do is question others' reasoning' quite an obnoxious way of debating?

I find it quite amazing that after all these thousands of posts (493 in this third iteration alone) you can't tell me what is not included in the term 'unborn child'.

Surely even a single example would prove useful.

rainbow kirby

Absolam wrote: »

You know, none of that actually sounds like you're even trying to present a reason to think there actually is a sound basis for your question... you just seem to be going further down that vague, unctuous, tedious, word splitting vacuous waffle avenue. Oh well.

Kettle, pot, black.