aloyisious wrote: » It being April 1st, I thought the report on RTE News re a funding donation to A.R.C from George Soros being returned due to S.I.P.O advice might be a spoof. It seems not....https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCBswAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fabortion-rights-campaign-return-e23000-to-foreign-donor-3316866-Apr2017%2F&usg=AFQjCNGrj82SJJzjRySXfakf0-jU1SHqZwhttps://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCCEwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Firishcatholic.ie%2Farticle%2Fpro-repeal-group-return-billionaire%25E2%2580%2599s-cash-after-ethics-watchdog-probe&usg=AFQjCNG0jW_zxDXu5ZsiOusS4oS88S8gAQ
infogiver wrote: » George Soros is a billionaire abortion factory magnate but he's no match for the Irish Catholic. Love it.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Is this in the latest edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? :rolleyes:
Amnesty International Ireland, meanwhile, said the €137,000 it received was used to campaign for Ireland to “bring its law on abortion into compliance with international human rights law and standards”.
recedite wrote: » It looks like Colm O'Gorman might be in a spot of trouble there. Amnesty International Ireland, meanwhile, said the €137,000 it received was used to campaign for Ireland to “bring its law on abortion into compliance with international human rights law and standards”. He may view issues such as the SSM campaign and Repeal the 8th as human rights issues, but there is no doubt that they are also political issues when they involve changing the laws in this country. SIPO are correct in trying to prevent foreign money being used in a campaign to change domestic laws. That goes for either side.
FA Hayek wrote: » O'Gorman likes to talk from two sides of his mouth, hiding behind his role with Amnesty Ireland while taking foreign money to campaign for legislative changes, which is illegal. I am sure he will come out with some 'excuse'.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Distinctions are irrelevant if you are not proving anything you say. The simple fact is you have not shown the "majority" of papers are any such thing. You just declared it to be so. Nothing more. And then dodged every attempt I have made since to get you to back up your original statement. So you can add one distinction or 100 distinctions, but the base statement is still not being supported. At all. Even a little bit. Recognized by who? You? You are talking about THREE papers. Three. Not 300, not 3000. 3. How exactly do you think THREE papers backs up your statement about the "majority" of such papers? You are simply moving the goal posts now rather than have the simple decency to retract your original statement as the hyperbolic nonsense that it clearly was. What about, for example, all the papers I cited? Not ones you imagine most other people are citing most of the time. The ones I used? The simple fact is that you are not finding any citations supporting the claim the fetus is actively and actually EXPERIENCING any pain. And rather than acknowledge that....... because for whatever reason pain is important to your narrative............. you simply make up fantastic generalizations about the entire body of work as a whole. So basically while screaming "bias" at everyone who fails to support your narrative, you are actually achieving nothing but putting a large very visible flag in your own bias here. And I think it is useful to highlight it as it is in play.
Given the anatomical evidence,it is quite possible that the fetus can feel pain from 20 weeks and is caused distress by intervention from as early as 15 or 16 weeks.
After 20 weeks of gestation,an unborn child has all the prerequisite anatomy,physiology,hormones,neurotransmitters and electrical current to "close the loop" and create the conditions needed to perceive pain.The development of the perception of pain begins at the 6th week of life.By 20 weeks,and perhaps even earlier,all the essential components of anatomy,physiology and neurobiology exist to transmit painful sensations from the skin to the spinal cord and to the brain.
My opinion is,based on evidence suggesting that the type of stimulation that will occur during abortion procedures,very likely most foetuses at 20 weeks after conception will be able to perceive that as painful,unplesant,noxious stimulation.
fran17 wrote: » Firstly,distinctions are very relevant in the context of you misrepresenting my stance on an issue in a underhanded attempt to strengthen your own argument.Very relevant indeed. In relation to your claim that I lack simple decency,you know nothing of me or what morals and beliefs define how I live my life.Your ad hominem attack merely confirms my belief that once your initial plethora of subjective science regarding foetal pain has doubt cast upon it your reaction is frustration and insults. Now moving on ,there is a significant amount of medical evidence to support the position that the unborn child experiences pain prior to 20 weeks. A paper for the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology states: Dr Jean A.Wright,professor and chair of paediatrics at Mercer school of medicine,in 2005 states: Dr Sunny Anand,Director of pain neurobiology laboratory Arkansas,in 2005 states: So the claim that there is a consensus among the medical and scientific community regarding the issue of foetal pain is untrue.There never was and,I imagine,there never will be.
volchitsa wrote: » That'll be the same Sunny Anand who is a "fanatic pro life devotee" according to the link below?http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/11/foetus.html And I can't help wondering if Jean A Wright may not be the same Jean Wright mentioned in this link about a pro life Christian prayer group? But perhaps not. Still. What was that you were saying about sources from scientists who were also activists in the field of abortion? Funny that. You only seem to object to the ones whose views you disapprove of.
fran17 wrote: » The Dr.Anand I refer to graduated top of his class at the university of Indore,India.Earned his degree at Oxford university and a post doctoral fellowship in anesthesiology from Harvard medical school.A more qualified opinion you could not find,period.In relation to Dr.Wright,well when your true wondering then get back to me. The individuals whom I questioned the motives of directly profit from the procurement of abortion.Their conclusions regarding foetal pain significantly increase the opportunity for further profit.Other than defending the unborn child from horrific pain or death,what do these doctors,who's opinions you disparage,have to gain in relation to their conclusions?
volchitsa wrote: » Right, so it is the same guy. Something of a spiritual guru apparently. Which may explain what he feels he has to gain by taking a deliberately provocative and anti scientific stance, with a veneer of science on top.
fran17 wrote: » This elusive entity which you feel he gains being?
volchitsa wrote: » Attention, for one thing.
fran17 wrote: » Well given the man's impeccable credentials and the fact that he has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles on the issue of pain and stress,and been given numerous awards for his work worldwide,the notion of attention being his motivation is farcical. Maybe its just possible that he actually has the interests of the unborn child at heart and believes,just as the generations of physicians before him believed,that "firstly,do no harm".Of course I'm assuming that,as a supporter of abortion,you hold the modern Hippocratic oath with disdain similar to which you hold for the unborn?
volchitsa wrote: » I was talking about his apparent lack of satisfaction with "merely" being a doctor, and his need for public adulation as a spiritual guru whose utterances are studied by his followers.
volchitsa wrote: » What's farcical is thinking that is a reply to my point. The Hippocratic oath bans surgery - should we do the same? Irish and UK doctors don't take the Hippocratic oath - are they less moral than those few places which do have a form of the oath? (Which will have had to be thoroughly modernized to allow surgery. And possibly dentistry. And of course abortion.) And as for Dr Sunny Anand. Well. "Whoosh" as far as you're concerned clearly. I was talking about his apparent lack of satisfaction with "merely" being a doctor, and his need for public adulation as a spiritual guru whose utterances are studied by his followers. And then there's my original point, which is that you claimed that a scientist's scientific work and credentials were only to be taken seriously if he had no other possible conflict of interest. If you were being honest about that, the same thing applies to Dr Sunny Anand, because he's not a neutral observer,he has another agenda. That you refuse to acknowledge that shows that you don't care about scientific objectivity, you're only interested in dismissing scientists whose position you don't agree with, by grasping at whatever straws you can find.
recedite wrote: » I think Sai Baba was "the guru" which you should know as you quoted from a website run by Sai Baba fans. Anyway its a bit much to criticise somebody's medical credentials just because they have some private affiliation to some vaguely buddhist type philosophy-religion.
fran17 wrote: » Firstly,distinctions are very relevant in the context of you misrepresenting my stance on an issue in a underhanded attempt to strengthen your own argument.Very relevant indeed.
fran17 wrote: » Your ad hominem attack merely confirms my belief that once your initial plethora of subjective science regarding foetal pain has doubt cast upon it your reaction is frustration and insults.
fran17 wrote: » Now moving on ,there is a significant amount of medical evidence to support the position that the unborn child experiences pain prior to 20 weeks.
fran17 wrote: » A paper for the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology states:
fran17 wrote: » Dr Jean A.Wright,professor and chair of paediatrics at Mercer school of medicine,in 2005 states: After 20 weeks of gestation,an unborn child has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters and electrical current to "close the loop" and create the conditions needed to perceive pain.The development of the perception of pain begins at the 6th week of life.By 20 weeks,and perhaps even earlier,all the essential components of anatomy,physiology and neurobiology exist to transmit painful sensations from the skin to the spinal cord and to the brain.
fran17 wrote: » Dr Sunny Anand,Director of pain neurobiology laboratory Arkansas,in 2005 states: My opinion is
Two unregulated crisis pregnancy agencies with connections to Irish pro-life groups have been caught giving misleading “advice” about the consequences of abortion, having sex and using contraception. A new undercover investigation by The Times has secretly recorded counsellors at the Ask Majella crisis pregnancy agency claiming that abortion causes breast cancer and can increase a woman’s chances of losing all of her reproductive organs. They also said that contraception was dangerous and women could “die” from having sex. A second undercover investigation at Gianna Care, a crisis pregnancy service that started as a Youth Defence activist group, recorded a counsellor telling the undercover reporter that all women who have an abortion regret it. Both agencies claimed to offer “the truth”.
Delirium wrote: » JoeyRed2 wrote: » Abortion should be illegal.. I don't understand why it's not. so you don't think abortion should be allowed where the womans life is at risk, as currently allowed by Irish law? :eek::eek:
JoeyRed2 wrote: » Abortion should be illegal.. I don't understand why it's not.
JoeyRed2 wrote: » No. It's completely immoral and it can't be tolerated.
Delirium wrote: » And how exactly is it moral to allow the woman to die when her death is preventable? Why is one wrong and the other okay?
Delirium wrote: » A woman posted over on Reddit that is was taking the abortion pill in Dublin.
She potentially faces 14 years in prison if the authorities track her down and confirm that she took the abortion pill.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Whiff of propaganda off that whole story IMO.
Isn't a lot of this thread arguing that the potential of something happening is meaningless? I'd say it's particularly meaningless in the circumstances above.
Delirium wrote: » Are you suggesting that the woman hasn't taken the abortion in Ireland?
Wouldn't agree. Having the possibility of 14 years in prison hanging over you isn't something to be indifferent about.
