WhiteRoses wrote: » You are being deliberately ignorant now. What do you propose, we set up euthanasia stations to dispose of grown, sentient children we no longer want? A bunch of cells, mere weeks old, in the womb are not comparable to developed, grown, sentient human being.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Have you ever tried to live off thin air? Its quite difficult. We need money for shelter and clothing and food and healthcare and education and to a lesser extent, transport. Those, at a minimum, are needed to live a comfortable life. If you aren't financially stable enough to provide those things for yourself AND for another little person (never mind children you may already have), living a comfortable life would be very difficult and stressful. Rather than impose a life of poverty on a child, some choose abortion. I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies, not grown children. There is a massive difference.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The point is completely flying over your head, you are being intentionally obtuse.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Affordability is just ONE of many reasons a woman may want an abortion.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » My sperm has the potential to be sentient life. Should I therefore bottle it and protect it? Technically masturbating is a mortal sin, no different than abortion. If you really want to follow your logic to it's logical conclusion, it should be illegal to have a ****. It should be classed as abortion.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You might want to enter into discussion with our meat industry then, as it does it daily. You might also want to take issue with the farming industry who do it also every day through the use of pesticides and insecticides. When you are done there, you might go to the paper industry, who are killing trees every day. After that the medical industry who use anti-biotics to end the lives of millions of bacteria in a holocaust of numbers beyond your imagination. Or instead you could get over the notion that "ending a life of another" is as bad as you think, and that the thing that makes "ending a life" bad in this world happens to be a thing the fetus being terminated lacks not just slightly, but ENTIRELY.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
NuMarvel wrote: » And this can be done while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion. In the same way, more can be done to improve sex education and access to contraception while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion. These aren't either/or situations, both can be done simultaneously, and no one has even hinted that socio-economic issues shouldn’t be addressed. Indeed, you’ll find that pro-choice groups like the NCWI and Amnesty have a history of campaigning on socio-economic issues, whereas anti-repeal groups like Iona don’t.
end of the road wrote: » masturbating is not a sin for a start, nor is it abortion.
end of the road wrote: » nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 1) A fetus that is in no way a sentient entity is a "human life" in taxonomy terms alone, and little else. There is nothing wrong with terminating it therefore that I can see. And what peoples reasons are for doing so should therefore be none of your business at all. Let alone to "validate" anything. it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance. nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 2) Sentience should be the point when arbitrary reasons for ending the life of another are no longer relevant. At this point there is a valid basis for concerning oneself morally and ethically with the well being of the entity involved. in the case of brain death where one is not going to recover, yes . that point is valid. however in the case of the unborn where sentients is likely, then sentients cannot be the reason for ending the life being no longer valid, pre-sentients has to be the reason, hence we cannot allow abortion on demand within the state. nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then don't. No one, that I can see anyway, is demanding that you do. There is no reason you should feel compelled to do it. But YOUR abhorrence to that choice is not a valid basis for claiming no one else should be making it. And it would be nice to live in a world where people wishing to prevent other people from doing something, could put together a coherent reason for that other than the usual cop out I hear of "I have a right to my opinion/vote". the fact that it is a life which will become sentient is absolutely a reason to prevent abortion on demand from happening within the irish state. nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except the options available to them SHOULD be different and are. That is the topic of the entire thread. Abortion should be an option one has, and the other does not. And it IS an option one has, and the other has not. The issue is just the pointless and damaging geographic and economic lengths they have to go to to avail of it when it could be offered here ethically and relatively safely in a way that is cheaper and easier for the people concerned. it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand. there is no good reason why it should be offered within the irish state, when those who really want it can already avail of it if they really wish to. nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except "Human life" can mean many things in many contexts. And your pretense that this is not so is not going to make all those meanings go away. A fetus at, say, 12 weeks is "Human life" in terms of taxonomy alone really. The same can not be said about, say, a toddler. Your whole point on this thread seems a fabricated narrative based on pretending the catch all term "human life" is equally applicable in all contexts. But it really isn't and I doubt many are fooled by it except, possibly, yourself as I genuinely can not tell if you are trying to fool WITH that move or have yourself been fooled BY that move. Or both. human life is human life. that is indisputable fact. that human life will become sentient and therefore has the right to be protected. nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And you have been told, and has this thread, many times what possible answers there are to that question. And my own answer, I have said 100s of times before, is that the moment we have solid reason to believe the fetus is a sentient agent....... we need more that arbitrary reasons to terminate it as it should have the same core right to life as any other sentient agent typifying it's species. and as has been said that isn't valid as sentients has to come from pre-sentients. therefore pre-sentients has to be given the same protection to allow for sentients to happen so that the would be sentient can become sentient.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 1) A fetus that is in no way a sentient entity is a "human life" in taxonomy terms alone, and little else. There is nothing wrong with terminating it therefore that I can see. And what peoples reasons are for doing so should therefore be none of your business at all. Let alone to "validate" anything.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 2) Sentience should be the point when arbitrary reasons for ending the life of another are no longer relevant. At this point there is a valid basis for concerning oneself morally and ethically with the well being of the entity involved.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then don't. No one, that I can see anyway, is demanding that you do. There is no reason you should feel compelled to do it. But YOUR abhorrence to that choice is not a valid basis for claiming no one else should be making it. And it would be nice to live in a world where people wishing to prevent other people from doing something, could put together a coherent reason for that other than the usual cop out I hear of "I have a right to my opinion/vote".
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except the options available to them SHOULD be different and are. That is the topic of the entire thread. Abortion should be an option one has, and the other does not. And it IS an option one has, and the other has not. The issue is just the pointless and damaging geographic and economic lengths they have to go to to avail of it when it could be offered here ethically and relatively safely in a way that is cheaper and easier for the people concerned.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except "Human life" can mean many things in many contexts. And your pretense that this is not so is not going to make all those meanings go away. A fetus at, say, 12 weeks is "Human life" in terms of taxonomy alone really. The same can not be said about, say, a toddler. Your whole point on this thread seems a fabricated narrative based on pretending the catch all term "human life" is equally applicable in all contexts. But it really isn't and I doubt many are fooled by it except, possibly, yourself as I genuinely can not tell if you are trying to fool WITH that move or have yourself been fooled BY that move. Or both.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And you have been told, and has this thread, many times what possible answers there are to that question. And my own answer, I have said 100s of times before, is that the moment we have solid reason to believe the fetus is a sentient agent....... we need more that arbitrary reasons to terminate it as it should have the same core right to life as any other sentient agent typifying it's species.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Say what??? Or is this another in your long line of attempts to pretend your pro-life views are not Roman Catholic in origin?
sondagefaux wrote: » If we have to protect potentially sentient life, my toenail clippings should be saved. After all, human DNA could be extracted from them and potentially used to clone me.
end of the road wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » Say what??? Or is this another in your long line of attempts to pretend your pro-life views are not Roman Catholic in origin? i don't need to pretend anything. i'm not roman catholic or any other religion. my pro-life views are my own. sondagefaux wrote: » If we have to protect potentially sentient life, my toenail clippings should be saved. After all, human DNA could be extracted from them and potentially used to clone me. cloneing isn't availible in ireland or most of the world, and won't be for a long time yet so your point is invalid
sondagefaux wrote: » You said that potential life should be preserved. There is plenty of evidence that human cloning is potentially available in the near future. Therefore, the logic of your own position dictates that toenail clippings be preserved for potential future cloning. Same goes for all human tissue, waste or bodily excretions containing DNA: snot, semen etc.
frag420 wrote: » Why do you keep ignoring my questions EOTR? Are you waiting for someone else to step in first to give you some ammo to reply with? Man the hell up.... Il ask again, do you personally have sex purely for procreation purposes or do you ever have sex recreationally for the fun of it?
end of the road wrote: » sondagefaux wrote: » You said that potential life should be preserved. There is plenty of evidence that human cloning is potentially available in the near future. Therefore, the logic of your own position dictates that toenail clippings be preserved for potential future cloning. Same goes for all human tissue, waste or bodily excretions containing DNA: snot, semen etc. my position doesn't dictate anything of the sort. i can see how one may try to think it does, given they are looking for any old thing to try and discredit the pro-life argument, something they are unable to do.
Martina1991 wrote: » I already asked that question of EOTR. See post 3851. He says "of course not",
Martina1991 wrote: » but if the vast many of us that have sex for the purpose of pleasure experience failed contraception God help us.
end of the road wrote: » Martina1991 wrote: » I already asked that question of EOTR. See post 3851. He says "of course not", correct. Martina1991 wrote: » but if the vast many of us that have sex for the purpose of pleasure experience failed contraception God help us. never said this. Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted. not if you agree with abortion outside extreme circumstances IMO. you aren't 100% pro-life
WhiteRoses wrote: » Of course you can be both. I am pro life for myself, in my own circumstances, and for my own life. I am pro choice, in that I support giving other women the option to choose in their own circumstances. Therefore I am both pro life and pro choice. It’s the most logical and sensible approach, imo.
frag420 wrote: » So am I hearing your correctly EOTR, you only have sex for procreational purposes only and not for recreational purposes? Can you confirm which it is?
