Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Options
24567…48

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    Viability is that it could survive outside of the mother's womb. Personally I have no problem with matching up with UK limit entirely. Late abortions occur in limited numbers and are not done at a whim as some believe. They are generally for entirely medical reasons or limited access to abortion, so that's what the eight ultimately supports.

    The pregnant woman does ultimately know what's best. I don't support forcing any woman to be pregnant against her will. That's ultimately what you support.

    "I don't support murdering any child. That's ultimately what you support"

    You see how trying to frame another person's argument isn't very conducive to debate?


  • Options
    #33
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Consonata


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Oh, it's that myth again - up there with the "woman leaving a buggy on the bus because DSP will give her a new one" ****e. That lie is constantly peddled about pro-life people, and is never qualified or backed up. You've probably never asked a pro-life person what they think about support for the family or child-raising, it is simply easier for you to attack this made up caricature in your head for not caring about people but merely loving the idea of forcing women to give birth. It's nonsense.

    I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.

    Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.
    "I don't support murdering any child. That's ultimately what you support"

    You see how trying to frame another person's argument isn't very conducive to debate?

    I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A bunch of cells barely larger than a few hairs, or a living person who has to go through the traumatic process of pregnancy?

    I don't think that is a hard question.


  • Options
    #34
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Consonata wrote: »
    I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.

    the idea is so ridiculous that it discredits itself.
    Consonata wrote: »
    Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.

    while some pro-life posters maybe economically conservative, many of us aren't and are against low spending on services and believe in good sex education and contraception.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #35
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Consonata wrote: »
    I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.

    Yeah, because the onus is on the person making the claim, not the person disputing it. As far as I'm aware, there's little to no statistical data available for use to see if pro-life means you hate children after they're born, which is what the other person is asserting.
    Consonata wrote: »
    Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.

    I'm not economically conservative, I don't know why you would assert that I want to cut child benefit, health services and education when I've never said I think that they should. I think the State should be providing more funding for education and family-oriented supports, not less...

    Obviously attacking someone's character that you've made up in your head is easier for you than realising we're not all black-and-white.
    Consonata wrote: »
    I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A bunch of cells barely larger than a few hairs, or a living person who has to go through the traumatic process of pregnancy?

    I don't think that is a hard question.

    Again, you're trying to frame this argument in a way to make your argument seem the only moral chocie.

    "I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A few months of pregnancy, or the permanent eradication of a human life?

    I don't think that is a hard question."


  • Options
    #36
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Consonata


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Obviously attacking someone's character that you've made up in your head is easier for you than realising we're not all black-and-white.

    Forgive me for thinking that a self described fascist is economically conservative. My mistake

    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Again, you're trying to frame this argument in a way to make your argument seem the only moral chocie.

    "I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A few months of pregnancy, or the permanent eradication of a human life?

    I don't think that is a hard question."

    Then it comes down to the philosophical argument about whether that bundle of cells is a human. I do not believe so. You do, and I highly doubt I am going to convince you otherwise considering your history on this issue in other threads.

    However I will pose you a paraphrase of the question that has been posed to other people in this thread. If a female Scientist is in a Laboratory with 100 frozen egg cells. If the Lab is on fire and you can only save 1, who do you save?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Consonata wrote: »
    Forgive me for thinking that a self described fascist is economically conservative. My mistake

    Don't think I've ever described myself as fascist, and putting that aside, fascism isn't economically conservative... You must be economically and historically illiterate if you think so.
    Consonata wrote: »
    Then it comes down to the philosophical argument about whether that bundle of cells is a human. I do not believe so. You do, and I highly doubt I am going to convince you otherwise considering your history on this issue in other threads.

    A "bundle of cells" is all you or I am... Obviously you are trying to qualify this as self-awareness being the defining characteristic of "human-ness", in which case I'd ask whether you consider someone to be in a vegetative state to be human or not? At what point do they start being human, and what stage do we stop being human?
    Consonata wrote: »
    However I will pose you a paraphrase of the question that has been posed to other people in this thread. If a female Scientist is in a Laboratory with 100 frozen egg cells. If the Lab is on fire and you can only save 1, who do you save?

    Obviously I will use my telekinetic powers to bend reality... Your "philosophical" question is obviously nonsensical, it doesn't deserve a reply of serious merit because it can quite as easily be displayed how ludicrous it is.

    "If the human race is about to die off due to infertility and there's one single woman who is left pregnant whose child will definitely be fertile. Do you let her choose to have an abortion or do you save the human race?"

    You see how infantile your argument is? While you might think it's witty in that you're trying to ensure everyone says "obviously I will save the woman" so you then argue that we're justifying abortion in that scenario so we need to justify is on demand, it's anything but. It's a stupid piece of rhetorical questioning designed to illicit a response.


  • Options
    #38
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome of the committee, a pregnancy is not a life in the early stages, and does not deserve those protections. I think 12 weeks is a good line to draw and I firmly believe women should have the right to termination without precondition up until this point. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she is not ready to have, be it due to age, financial circumstances or indeed any other reason she may have.

    I think the key points are, in the early stages of pregnancy it is not a life, it does not have nor deserve any human rights as it is quite simply not a human at that point. I do hope this referendum is carried and we remove this amendment from our constitution as it is blot on our nation.


  • Options
    #39
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Inquitus wrote: »
    I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome of the committee, a pregnancy is not a life in the early stages, and does not deserve those protections. I think 12 weeks is a good line to draw and I firmly believe women should have the right to termination without precondition up until this point. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she is not ready to have, be it due to age, financial circumstances or indeed any other reason she may have.

    I think the key points are, in the early stages of pregnancy it is not a life, it does not have nor deserve any human rights as it is quite simply not a human at that point. I do hope this referendum is carried and we remove this amendment from our constitution as it is blot on our nation.


    it is a life ultimately. you may believe it to be a life deserving of nothing but that doesn't change the fact it is a life and a human being that will ultimately develop into a person. as so it has to have rights otherwise we ultimately allow the degradation of the right to life long term. + the cut off couldn't remain at 12 weeks, it would have to rise eventually.
    there are plenty of stains on this country but abortion on demand not being availible isn't one of those. to suggest it is is in my view an insult to those who went through atrocities caried out in this country whether it be abuse and so on.
    the unfortunate thing here is that the 8th does cause genuine problems and there are a number of us who would happily vote to repeal it if it wasn't for the threat of abortion on demand being availible in ireland.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #40
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,729 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    The case for abortion and killing the unborn, can also be made for infanticide.

    People who say it is not a life are arguing they exist because somehow when they were alive in the womb at the earliest, they in fact were not alive, ie a life.

    What the committee argued for and signed off on is good for the retain the 8th side as it is abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
    The irony is the people arguing for this would say it is offensive if pictures of an unborn life at 12 weeks was displayed, and say stuff that it is emotive, when it should mean nothing, the fact is people arguing for abortion will be the people who will not want pictures of an aborted unborn at 12 weeks being shown, and one would have to wonder why, looks too human?


  • Options
    #41
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,441 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    end of the road wrote: »
    it is a life ultimately. you may believe it to be a life deserving of nothing but that doesn't change the fact it is a life and a human being that will ultimately develop into a person. as so it has to have rights otherwise we ultimately allow the degradation of the right to life long term. + the cut off couldn't remain at 12 weeks, it would have to rise eventually.
    there are plenty of stains on this country but abortion on demand not being availible isn't one of those. to suggest it is is in my view an insult to those who went through atrocities caried out in this country whether it be abuse and so on.
    the unfortunate thing here is that the 8th does cause genuine problems and there are a number of us who would happily vote to repeal it if it wasn't for the threat of abortion on demand being availible in ireland.

    It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. I wasn't alive in 1983 but I can't understand why it was put into the constitution at all. I'll admit it might be hard for me looking at it through 2017 eyes but putting it in the constitution was madness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. I wasn't alive in 1983 but I can't understand why it was put into the constitution at all. I'll admit it might be hard for me looking at it through 2017 eyes but putting it in the constitution was madness.

    essentially it was to insure ultimate protection for the life and rights of the unborn. however it wasn't quite thought through as it caused other unforseen issues. i agree whole heartedly with protections and rights for the unborn but i do think the legislation didn't think some things through in terms of circumstances where it just wouldn't have been viable to save the baby, FFA for example.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    essentially it was to insure ultimate protection for the life and rights of the unborn. however it wasn't quite thought through as it caused other unforseen issues. i agree whole heartedly with protections and rights for the unborn but i do think the legislation didn't think some things through in terms of circumstances where it just wouldn't have been viable to save the baby, FFA for example.

    Unforeseen by whom?

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


    A former president of the country, and established constitutional lawyer who was prominent in the debate of the day raised many of the issues, decades before we saw the exact circumstances play out.

    (04:56 onwards)

    Binchy's quote at 08:30 is telling
    Mary Robinson @ 10:24 wrote:
    We have created a right to life of the unborn, that right is entitled to its remedy. It's entitled to be asserted. It can't be asserted by the foetus for obvious reasons. It can be asserted by a third party. This is all possible legal litigation that we are facing into.


  • Options
    #44
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,441 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    end of the road wrote: »
    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. I wasn't alive in 1983 but I can't understand why it was put into the constitution at all. I'll admit it might be hard for me looking at it through 2017 eyes but putting it in the constitution was madness.

    essentially it was to insure ultimate protection for the life and rights of the unborn. however it wasn't quite thought through as it caused other unforseen issues. i agree whole heartedly with protections and rights for the unborn but i do think the legislation didn't think some things through in terms of circumstances where it just wouldn't have been viable to save the baby, FFA for example.
    Yes it did and I watched the contributions of the two people who came in to the committee to give their story on how a FFA of their unborn baby lead to a horrific experience because they said of the 8th amendment. I mean if anyone hasn't then they should go and read the transcript or watch the video of them telling their story. It's harrowing to read or watch.


  • Options
    #45
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,613 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Andyfitzer wrote: »

    It is logically flawed. One of the main reasons given to allow abortion is the fact that women are going to England to have abortions and ordering online abortifacients. This means they are legalising something because women are doing it anyway. Are we going to have legal drugs and prostitution now, because people go to Holland anyway, or do it illegally here already? Legal fraud, because people do it already? That is ludicrous logic. I'm appalled that people in power cannot see that the law should be logical and moral, not "if you can't beat them, join 'em"!!!! If abortion is illegal, and they break the law, arrest them. Don't capitulate, enforce. If there are real reasons to legalise, fine, but for this?

    See for me the idea that abortion in Ireland does not exist is logically flawed. It does, it just happens in the UK. It is perhaps the main reason I will vote to repeal the 8th. IMO there is no point in us wishing that this world we live in is an ideal place because it isnt and nor will it ever be. It is better to deal with the world as we see it rather than as how we hope we would see it. Right now the law is all about the latter, it deals with idealism rather than realism and what we end up with is Ireland sweeping our problems under Englands carpet. We can pretend it isnt there but at the end of the day it most certainly is so I just dont see the point in sticking heads in the sand over this.

    Your point above says that the law should be logical and moral. But for any law to work it also has to be enforceable. What should the govt. be doing, rounding up every woman who has an abortion and throwing them in jail for 14 years? At the moment Irish prison capacity is around 5,000 inmates. We would need around 200,000 new prison spaces for that to happen.


  • Options
    #46
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,441 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Also in relation to the make up of the committee and the pro choice and pro life members, were Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, and Peter Fitzpatrick the best members the pro life side could muster to make the case ? The pro life position surely could have articulated better with other oireachtas members ?

    Edit: there are 218 members of the oireachtas and these three were the best ? I doubt that seriously. I mean Mattie McGrath I wouldn't let mind my dog, and ronan Mullen has an arrogant streak to his questioning.


  • Options
    #47
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Consonata


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Obviously I will use my telekinetic powers to bend reality... Your "philosophical" question is obviously nonsensical, it doesn't deserve a reply of serious merit because it can quite as easily be displayed how ludicrous it is.

    "If the human race is about to die off due to infertility and there's one single woman who is left pregnant whose child will definitely be fertile. Do you let her choose to have an abortion or do you save the human race?"

    You see how infantile your argument is? While you might think it's witty in that you're trying to ensure everyone says "obviously I will save the woman" so you then argue that we're justifying abortion in that scenario so we need to justify is on demand, it's anything but. It's a stupid piece of rhetorical questioning designed to illicit a response.

    I mean, half of your response was spurning my intelligence. Please be more polite in future.

    The point of the question is which is of greater value, the frozen eggs or the woman. I see nothing "witty" about it. This is quite a serious issue.

    If you aren't going to attempt to argue in good faith, don't bother wasting my time whilst I am trying to have a civilised debate.


  • Options
    #48
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I think the poster above who writes about the real world facts is right in that women in Ireland generally can't legally be prevented from obtaining an abortion because they are free to travel to GB for one. That's the reality. You just need money and an abortion is yours.

    So the current legal restriction on abortion actually only prevents a poorer subset of women from obtaining such abortions. This is clearly quite discriminatory.

    The women who can afford to travel for an abortion will do so. We as a society currently choose to make their situation more difficult by only allowing abortion in a foreign country with little emotional support.

    I really don't like this. Ireland's women are for us in Ireland to care for and not something we should try to brush under England's carpet.

    Debating the issue on the grounds of whether a foetus at 12 weeks is a human with all the rights of a born human just goes around in circles as the vast majority of people have a fixed idea of what is what. To me a clump of cells of a fertilised egg is not much more miraculous than the egg and sperm separately, and (almost) nobody believes human sperm is "life". Others believe the opposite, that a fertilised egg has as much right to life as their own mother, sisters or daughters. I'll never get my head around their position and they'll never get theirs around mine.


  • Options
    #49
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Consonata wrote: »
    I mean, half of your response was spurning my intelligence. Please be more polite in future.

    The point of the question is which is of greater value, the frozen eggs or the woman. I see nothing "witty" about it. This is quite a serious issue.

    If you aren't going to attempt to argue in good faith, don't bother wasting my time whilst I am trying to have a civilised debate.

    The question posed is dishonest at best. Your scenario is comparing a threat to the life of the mother against a threat to the existence of an (unfertilied?) egg. Are we to take this as your argument in support for abortion where the mother's life is at risk? Of course not, you're going to change the meaning of the question to suit yourself - that acknowledging a direct threat to the mother's life means you hold the woman in higher regard, and so why can't we just see that abortion is letting her live her life!! Your question is spurious and ill structured if you actually intended to provoke the kind of response you wish. Nevermind the fact that a frozen egg doesn't have the capacity for life of its own accord, but a foetus does.

    You aren't even arguing in good faith yourself, you tried to simply attack my character by saying I essentially hate poor children and families, asserted that I'm a fascist, a pro-birther and am "economically conservative". Don't get on your high horse, just because I'm refusing to answer your nonsensical, hypothetical question.

    If you weren't using every dirty trick in the book, from smearing me to promoting falsehoods in the guise of philosophical questions, maybe I wouldn't be so combative.


  • Options
    #50
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,441 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    So as it seems likely that there will be a referendum on the 8th amendment next year. Is it such a slam dunk as we are lead to believe by most quarters ?

    I'm just saying is there a chance of this not being repealed ?

    I say that because unlike the same sex marriage referendum where I personally know of people who didnt/do not agree with homosexuality, but who still voted yes to people being allowed to marry. I just think the issue of abortion may not be given the same pass.


  • Options
    #51
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Unforeseen by whom?
    A former president of the country, and established constitutional lawyer who was prominent in the debate of the day raised many of the issues, decades before we saw the exact circumstances play out.
    Robinson saying there that a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn could be used to protect the life of the unborn. What is "unforeseen" about that?

    Maybe it was unforeseen that the SC would allow abortion if the mother's life was genuinely at risk. That interpretation of the constitution was decided at the time of the X-case, and eventually legislated for in 2013.

    Maybe if an abortion was performed tomorrow in a case of genuine FFA (I mean a genuinely fatal abnormality) then the SC would rule that the existing 8th amendment also allows abortion in those circumstances. We won't know the answer to that unless somebody tries it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    recedite wrote: »
    Robinson saying there that a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn could be used to protect the life of the unborn. What is "unforeseen" about that?

    Maybe it was unforeseen that the SC would allow abortion if the mother's life was genuinely at risk. That interpretation of the constitution was decided at the time of the X-case, and eventually legislated for in 2013.

    Maybe if an abortion was performed tomorrow in a case of genuine FFA (I mean a genuinely fatal abnormality) then the SC would rule that the existing 8th amendment also allows abortion in those circumstances. We won't know the answer to that unless somebody tries it.

    We've had to have referendums on the right to travel, the health of the mother including suicide. Ffa is clearly not covered by constitution... Basically we've had to repeatedly patch over gaps as a result of the amendment.


  • Options
    #53
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The case for abortion and killing the unborn, can also be made for infanticide.

    No it can't. After birth any capable adult can care for a baby, not necessarily its mother. In fact this happens all the time.
    People who say it is not a life are arguing they exist because somehow when they were alive in the womb at the earliest, they in fact were not alive, ie a life.

    Before the sperm and egg meet, there is no life. I think we can agree on that? And at birth there is a life, we can agree too. So at the beginning of the process there is no life and at the end there is one. I don't know what point you're trying to make there.
    What the committee argued for and signed off on is good for the retain the 8th side as it is abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

    Which the majority of the public are comfortable with. The 8th will go. But we will not be voting on the committee's report or on the proposed legislation, just the question of whether to repeal or not.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #54
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    Ffa is clearly not covered by constitution...
    The constitition also contains "enumerated rights", to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is how abortion "if the life of the mother is at risk" came to be legal in Ireland. Not via any referendum.

    FFA has something in common with the above; in both situations the foetus is doomed either way. So despite the "equal right to life" of the foetus, priority has to be given to the mother.

    If the abnormality of FFA was 100% known to be fatal, and there was even a slight risk to the mother, then the interests of the mother would have to come first.

    There was a gruesome case a couple of years ago involving a doomed foetus inside a brain dead woman. One thing that came out of it was that we learned the 8th amendment does not necessarily protect a foetus that is dying. The machine was ordered to be switched off. This was to protect the psychological health of the relatives (not the life of a relative)

    Of course switching off life support is not quite the same as actively killing something. But it shows that a doomed foetus has little or no protection, and cannot be allowed to cause distress to its relatives.

    Its anyone's guess how all this would work out in the SC if there was a case of FFA abortion in Ireland. They would be balancing the right to life of an already doomed foetus, against the rights to health of the mother and family. If it was me, I'd say the latter had a greater claim.


  • Options
    #55
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,986 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Before the sperm and egg meet, there is no life. I think we can agree on that? And at birth there is a life, we can agree too. So at the beginning of the process there is no life and at the end there is one. I don't know what point you're trying to make there.

    in the middle there is life also.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Which the majority of the public are comfortable with.

    i wouldn't be so sure that the majority of the public are comfortable with abortion on demand. even if the 8th goes it may not necessarily be because people are comfortable with abortion on demand, but they believe the other issues caused are of greater importence to sort.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #56
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Before the sperm and egg meet, there is no life. I think we can agree on that? And at birth there is a life, we can agree too. So at the beginning of the process there is no life and at the end there is one. I don't know what point you're trying to make there.

    That's quite a strange conclusion. "Before the egg is fertilised there is no life, so after the egg is fertilised we can't say for certain there's life until it's born".

    Surely, the logical conclusion of your position should be that once the egg is fertilised it has become a life, since its natural progression is to become a life barring any catastrophe that would kill it?


  • Options
    #57
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Surely, the logical conclusion of your position should be that once the egg is fertilised it has become a life, since its natural progression is to become a life barring any catastrophe that would kill it?

    Significantly fewer than half of all fertilised human eggs make it to full term. The "natural progression" for the average fertilised egg is spontaneous abortion.


  • Options
    #58
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Significantly fewer than half of all fertilised human eggs make it to full term. The "natural progression" for the average fertilised egg is spontaneous abortion.

    Source? The only figure I've found is that 20% of pregnancies are miscarried. Which doesn't prove anything regardless - a fertilised egg isn't designed to "self-abort", it may simply encounter an issue which causes that to be the outcome.


  • Options
    #59
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Source? The only figure I've found is that 20% of pregnancies are miscarried. Which doesn't prove anything regardless - a fertilised egg isn't designed to "self-abort", it may simply encounter an issue which causes that to be the outcome.
    Actually he was generous, the actual number is 31% of all eggs in contact with sperm and of course there's this simple chart to simply show how silly the whole position of "child from fertilization of egg" is in practice.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9998/bin/ch21f20.jpg


  • Options
    #60
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Nody wrote: »
    Actually he was generous, the actual number is 31% of all eggs in contact with sperm and of course there's this simple chart to simply show how silly the whole position of "child from fertilization of egg" is in practice.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9998/bin/ch21f20.jpg
    If you think it is amazing that any one of us survives to be born, you are correct. It is estimated that one-half to two-thirds of all human conceptions do not develop successfully to term (Figure 21.20). Many of these embryos express their abnormality so early that they fail to implant in the uterus. Others implant but fail to establish a successful pregnancy. Thus, most abnormal embryos are spontaneously aborted, often before the woman even knows she is pregnant (Boué et al. 1985). Edmonds and co-workers (1982)

    Again, this doesn't have a bearing on the legalisation of abortion - the foetus encounters an issue which necessitates its own demise. Nobody is saying we should be trying to keep foetuses with FFA alive, we're disputing the fact that they're somehow not a life from when they're conceived.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Consonata
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Consonata


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Again, this doesn't have a bearing on the legalisation of abortion - the foetus encounters an issue which necessitates its own demise. Nobody is saying we should be trying to keep foetuses with FFA alive, we're disputing the fact that they're somehow not a life from when they're conceived.

    Like being separated from the mother?

    A foetus living is dependent on remaining in the mother up to a certain stage


Advertisement