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.
Calina wrote: » You support state sanctioned murder. Enough said.
Sardonicat wrote: » Why should it?
DubInMeath wrote: » Looks like Justin Barrett finally registered/re-registered with boards : -)
Sean.3516 wrote: » Sardonicat wrote: » Why should it? Because it’s just as human as you or I.
Sardonicat wrote: » No its is not.
Sean.3516 wrote: » My names’s not Justin. It’s Sean. I won’t tell you my second name if you don’t mind. But who is this Justin?
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”
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. Now, if you’re making the argument about what graduation of human development makes a human worth protecting, 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. If left to it’s own devices it will become a fully developed human (in the respect that pro choicers believe it’s worth protecting) why do you insist that it can be morally killed before hand? Prove me wrong.
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?
eviltwin wrote: » 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.
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”
Crock Rock wrote: » My mistkae and poor terminlogy. If a developed child who can feel pain is being killed in the womb, then pain relief should be mandatory. At 12 weeks, there if I'm not mistaken no proper nervous system is developed. If I'm wrong and there is a nervous system at 12 weeks then, yes, pain relief should be mandatory.
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?
uptherebels wrote: » No it should be at the discretion of the doctor wether to use any drugs/painkillers etc
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.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Human life does begin at conception. If you think that’s wrong you’re anti-science.
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.
SusieBlue wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
Sean.3516 wrote: » I was disputing the morality of abortion.
Sean.3516 wrote: » It’s an individual human because it’s got 46 chromosomes
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?
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.
Certainly not if they’ll be unhooked from you within 9 months. 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.
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?
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. 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.
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.
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.
Sean.3516 wrote: » HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION FOLKS. From that point on its a HUMAN BEING. Nobody disputes that.
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.
SusieBlue wrote: » I’m in a facebook group with circa 30k Irish women, mainly made up of mothers. Tonight a woman posted about how she had gone for a medical abortion in Holles St on Monday. It was straightforward, no complications, and she was discharged from the clinic. Today she got a phone call from a man who confirmed her name and address, who told her she needed to return to a clinic for a follow up appointment and further scans. Shortly afterwards, she received a text with details and directions to her follow up appointment from an 089 number. She was confused because it contradicted what she had previously been told so she rang Holles St to see if there was a reason she had been called back. They had no idea what she was talking about, there was no appointment. So she rang the 089 number and when the man realized he’d been caught out, he gave her the height of abuse, calling her disgusting among other names and asking did she not know what risks she was taking with her choices. She rang the guards to report it and unfortunately it seems that she isn’t the first woman this has happened to in the last week or two. Someone in the health service is leaking private, confidential patient information to the Love Boats gang who are then using that information to try to intimidate and harass women into not having abortions. Just when you think they can’t stoop any lower. Here’s a screenshot of the text the woman received; she posted the full number but I have blurred it out so it doesn’t get deleted by Boards. I’m not familiar with Dublin but would love to know what’s at the address she was given. How anyone can defend or respect the pro life movement after this is absolutely beyond me.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
