Outlaw Pete wrote: » Here we have the remarkable story of where a blob of biological matter became a baby for a short while (just so it could be operated on) and then immediately went back to being a bunch of cells right after. Amazing, must be some kind of mutant... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70FBEwshrE
B0jangles wrote: » Quick question, when you were pregnant infogiver , did you tell people ' I have a baby' or would you have said 'i'm expecting a baby'? Did you call yourself a 'mother' or an 'expectant mother'?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Here's a neonatal surgeon and during an operation, and multiple times afterwards, he refers to the baby as a baby (oftentimes when the mother is not around). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLjfmRacgYw
professore wrote: » This is why we need whatever replaces the 8th to be written into the constitution IMO. A lot of the people on here are taking a "sure it'll be grand - no one is talking about late stage terminations on demand" approach - but leaving it up to the politicians makes this a real possibility. If you are OK with that, great, but I'm not OK with it.
sean8carthy wrote: » 6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later. 40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Everyone including you knows abortion is not murder. Look it up. Never was, never will be.
pjohnson wrote: » Bahahahahahaha hahahaha Oh well I have to say the consistently well educated views from the anti-choice is certainly entertaining.
The_Valeyard wrote: » As can be the hysteria from the pro-death side.
farmer john8 wrote: » the nazis were responsible whether the jews lived or died the same as the mother carrying the baby. why cant the woman who decides to end the life of her unborn baby be allowed to press some device set up by the doctors to end the babys life and take full responsibility for her actions
farmer john8 wrote: » i used to be very opposed to the liberal agenda but over the years i have mellowed quiet a bit . 1 abortion if people want to kill their unborn children let them the kids would only turn out like their parents anyway 2 gay if they wish hence no procreation 3 Euthanasia then they can go and kill themselves all this will only insure that there are less lefty atheists around in the future
infogiver wrote: » It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used. I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997. It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases. For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ". It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ". And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby. It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.
neonsofa wrote: » I referred to my child as "it" for the entire pregnancy as I didn't know the gender. Then when her uncle regularly referred to her as "it" after the birth it started to sound kind of rude. It's all about context and who is saying it. Expectant parents are obviously going to be more likely to use affectionate terms.
infogiver wrote: » But when you had a scan of your womb when you were pregnant you didn't see any baby?
pjohnson wrote: » "Mental Gymnastics" is also known as Science and relies on facts. Its not for everyone I guess.
infogiver wrote: » I just wanted you to confirm that you didn't see a baby on screen at any of your scans. You've confirmed now that you didn't. No offence intended.
infogiver wrote: » Mental gymnastics is being on gaurd all the time when speaking about pregnancy and childbirth so as not to confer personhood on the contents of a pregnant woman's womb. You think you sound very clever, I'm not afraid to point out your just coming across as unbearably arrogant by dismissing the opinion of someone who doesn't agree with you. Arrogant and immature to be precise.
pjohnson wrote: » Emm
farmer john8 wrote: » if the scumbag lefty liberals want to abort their own children they can go right ahead and jump on a ferry to the uk and on the way back jump off.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of ireland
pjohnson wrote: » No despite your confusion and hysterics... I'm sorry facts inconvenience/confuse you.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Does the fact that the 8th amendment uses the legal term "the unborn" with reference to human life, confuse you? Because to refer to it as human life (as distinct from other forms of life) is far more scientifically accurate than your insistence upon using medical terminology while ignoring terms that are commonly used in a social context.
pjohnson wrote: » "Unborn" means foetus not baby. Without being born it is not a baby...........
One eyed Jack wrote: » Does the fact that the 8th amendment uses the legal term "the unborn" with reference to human life, confuse you?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nope, you're still wrong. The unborn is a legal term -"unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the womanhttp://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf When referring to human life in the context of the 8th amendment, you're going to have to restrict yourself to legal definitions, not medical terminology. Your attempts to suggest that the foetus is more scientifically accurate and to hold people to those definitions, ignores the fact that statistically speaking, more abortions are performed before the developing human life ever develops to a point where it meets the medical definition of foetus.
PopePalpatine wrote: » And that's before you consider who decided the 8th Amendment's wording.
