Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

When I say left to it’s own devices, I should have said if left unimpeaded in it’s development, that’s barring an accidental miscarriage, or some medical circumstance that leads it to dying.

For the record, I am vociferously against domestic violence. And I think it’s a disgrace that we don’t have a mandatory death penalty in this country for rapists and murderers. They deserve to die.

Now before you all say I’m not really pro-life for wanting rapists and murders executed. First of all the term pro life has has always referred to be people against abortion where there is no threat to life of the mother. If you’re saying I’m not pro life for wanting these criminals dead then your really changing the definition of life to anti-killing, which is not what it means.

In my above post, I said that killing (innocent humans) was wrong. To kill someone I believe that they have to be either guilty of rape or murder and given due process of law, a threat to you in which case killing yourself is self defense or during a war in which killing soldiers of an opposing nation who are not surrendering is not immoral.

You support state sanctioned murder. Enough said.

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why should it?

Because it’s just as human as you or I.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why should it?

Because it’s just as human as you or I.

No its is not.

Sardonicat wrote: »

No its is not.

I made a full arguement in my above longer post as to why it was. It’s the same species of organism just at an earlier phase of development.

Maybe engage with something in my original arguement or make an actual argument yourself instead of just typing: “why is it?” And then why I reply “no its is not”

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I made a full arguement in my above longer post as to why it was. It’s the same species of organism just at an earlier phase of development.

Maybe engage with something in my original arguement or make an actual argument yourself instead of just typing: “why is it?” And then why I reply “no its is not”

You're a year too late. It's here and it's happening so you will have to find some way of getting over yourself.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Got the exact same reply from a banned user in the posts before the result of the vote, try searching the posts for the answer, or Google?

Really? They exact same reply. How ominous. If you think I’m someone I’m not bring some evidence, like that post or things that this guy has said.
Jayzys, I’ve always assumed good faith on the part of everyone I’ve discussed an issue with. And you guys are accusing me of being an imposter.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

No its is not.

I made a full arguement in my above longer post as to why it was. It’s the same species of organism just at an earlier phase of development.

Maybe engage with something in my original arguement or make an actual argument yourself instead of just typing: “why is it?” And then why I reply “no its is not”

You did not make a full argument as to why it should have the same rights beyond saying that it's as human as you or I, which it clearly is not. I do not rely on the body of another human being to sustain my existence, do you?

Sardonicat wrote: »

You did not make a full argument as to why it should have the same rights beyond saying that it's as human as you or I, which it clearly is not. I do not rely on the body of another human being to sustain my existence, do you?

Relying on the body of another human to stay alive wouldn’t make you any less human.

It’s an individual human because it’s got 46 chromosomes and is a completely different organism to its mother. The fact that it’s dependent on its mother for the first 9 months of its existence doesn’t make it not a human.

Human life does begin at conception. If you think that’s wrong you’re anti-science.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Relying on the body of another human to stay alive wouldn’t make you any less human.

It’s an individual human because it’s got 46 chromosomes and is a completely different organism to its mother. The fact that it’s dependent on its mother for the first 9 months of its existence doesn’t make it not a human.

Human life does begin at conception. If you think that’s wrong you’re anti-science.

While it depends on her to thrive and grow into an independent entity, it should be up to her what happens to it, seeing as it resides inside her and requires her body to survive.

No one is denying its human.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Human life began perhaps millions of years ago. But what we're talking about here is an individual human being. The life of an individual human being does not start at conception; it starts at sentience.

I’m not talking about when humans evolved millions of years ago. I’m talking about when new human beings are made.

That’s an anti science position. Conception is the point at which new humans are made
Dr Peter Boylan, chair of institute of Irish OBGYNs and major campaigner on the repeal side stated this in a debate. There’s literally not a scientist or doctor on planet earth that disputes this fact. Any LC biology textbook will tell you this. Your sentience argument is scientifically nonsensical.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS. From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that. If you do you’re anti-scientific.

Not sure anyone has disputed that. I just do not think that means anything as important as you think it does. Nor is it clear exactly which scientific definition you are using, since you did not actually cite one. Further it is not clear why you think a scientific definition is relevant in a discussion about morality, ethics and rights..... which is more philosophy than science.

So in short, your entire point here is unclear. Maybe try again?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I would say the gradation doesn’t matter. It’s still a human being whether is a newly formed embryo or a fully formed foetus. No innocent human being deserves to be killed no matter what their stage of development is.

Well how convenient for you that you can just declare "doesn't matter" to anything that might invalidate or challenge your assertions. However as I said above, biological taxonomy does not ground your ethical non-reasoning here. You are projecting the terms of science into philosophy and then making wanton assertions off them for no reason.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I was disputing the morality of abortion.

Well no, not really you were not. You were asserting scientific definitions for biological humanity. At no point grounding any moral reasoning in those definitions at all. You appear to think that merely appending the word "Human" to it does all the moral reasoning for you, so you do not have to try.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It’s an individual human because it’s got 46 chromosomes

So what? Why do you think moral and ethical philosophy is connected with chromosomes?

If for example anther sentient species visits our planet do you think their number of chromosomes, even if they have any at all, would determine their eligibility for rights, and our moral and ethical concern?

Or if for example our technology reaches the point where your consciousness could be uploaded into a computer system and removed from your body, leaving you sentient in the machine and capable of well being or suffering.... should we have no moral or ethical concern for you merely because you now have NO chromosomes?

Or are you willing to admit that moral and ethical concern, and rights, are entirely independent of the biological substrate they happen to be instantiated upon and that you can not present, or at least have not at all yet presented, an argument for why that biological substrate is a concern.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Are you acknowledging that it can feel pain at this point and still denying that it’s a human worthy of rights?

The majority.... nay the near totality.... of choice based abortion occurs in or before week 16. In fact the near totality in or before week 12. There is absolutely no scientific evidence at this time to suggest that fetus can feel any pain. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to think there is anyONE there capable of feeling pain, let alone with the biological structures required to actually receive any.

However I absolutely fail to see what pain has to do with anything. Rights are not grounded in the ability to feel pain. Nor should they be. In fact there are humans with a rare medical condition who can not feel any pain at all. They have no more, or less, rights than you or I. The ability to feel pain is a red herring smoke screen here.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You don’t get to decide if someone lives or dies just because they are hooked up to you.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Just cos something resides within you doesn’t entitle you to decide it’s fate.

Well actually, due to the result of the referendum.... yes she very much does. She absolutely does get to make that decision and evaluation. So perhaps stop shouting "anti science" at people and realise that you yourself are now being "anti reality". I am not sure what you feel you gain here by making declarations that are absolutely the opposite of the current state of affairs here in Ireland and in the UK.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So? I wasn’t disputing that we had a vote and that your side won.

I was disputing the morality of abortion.

Just because a referendum was had doesn’t mean “case closed on the issue.”

After the 1983 referendum in which your side lost by the same margin, you guys continued the conversation, in accordance with your right to do so. Why can’t we do the same?

Fire ahead. I still haven't seen one single explanation as to why a fetus has the same rights as a living, breathing,woman. Not one.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You don’t get to decide if someone lives or dies just because they are hooked up to you. Certainly not if they’ll be unhooked from you within 9 months.

spoken as a man who will never experience an "unhooking".

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Plus it’s an arguement that proves too much, your kids depend on you to thrive and grow after their born too. It would be wrong to just kill them if you couldn’t handle it. If old people were too much of a burden on the tax payer and we just decided to kill them all, that would be bad.

Just cos something resides within you doesn’t entitle you to decide it’s fate. Yes it’s dependent on your body but its not part of your body.

yet you have no absolutely no problem letting the fetus decide the womans fate. How bizarre.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Are you acknowledging that it can feel pain at this point and still denying that it’s a human worthy of rights?

Where did I say or imply any off that?
You can't just fabricate stuff as you go along.

The decision to use or not use a drug in any circumstance or situation should be at the discretion of medical professionals.

It's not that difficult to understand.

according to google maps this crowd are based there https://www.britishpregnancyservices.com/

location here https://www.google.com/maps/place/British+Pregnancy+Services/@53.3574765,-6.2704654,17z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x48670e7fb71aea77:0xda02e18e6cddd75e!2s9+Berkeley+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin+7,+D07+HNF4!3b1!8m2!3d53.3574733!4d-6.2682767!3m4!1s0x48670e7fb71aea77:0xe273c892e93619b6!8m2!3d53.3574733!4d-6.2682767

according to the reviews it is a pro-life place that offers biased advice .

Fake. This is an prolife "clinic" that likes to women. Avoid.

Anti-choice crowd who are going to new lows to try and convince women to keep their baby. Shame on them!

Please don't go here, it's not trying to help you, only lies, shame and deceit. Anti-choice.