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

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Options
1…4041434546…55

Comments

  • Options
    #1262
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    theological wrote: »
    I'd appreciate the pro-choice side more if they were honest and argued that killing an unborn child is justifiable in certain circumstances rather than trying to dehumanise the unborn.

    You think people who are not you are more honest if they start espousing YOUR positions rather than their own? You have an odd definition of "honest" there, differing quite a lot from my own.

    But no the issue is not that we dehumanise anything. The issue is that you unjustifiable humanise things before their due and without any substance explaining why you do so.

    If you don't find it concerning that's entirely up to you.


  • Options
    #1263
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.

    No it has not. What HAS happened is you show up periodically to make a post like this SAYING it has been rebutted, then when I reply you run away for some days of weeks, and then show up and make the same post again containing all the things I rebutted and destroyed in the post you previously entirely ignored.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Is it that prochoicers keep backslapping your posts (or PMing you - as you posted elsewhere) that has resulted in you incorrectly thinking it has merit, is that it?

    The fact that you can not rebut a single aspect of my posts, nor can anyone else it seems, that makes me think they have merit. We work the same in Science for example. We do not prove things true in science. Rather we continuously test them to see if they are false and "merit" is gained for the Theories that hold up to scrutiny.

    Actually a lot of my PMs come from the anti choicers, usually in the form of threats, insults and personal attacks. Not finding much merit in them either.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Is it a numbers thing? It must be, as it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

    See what I mean about merely SAYING my positions have no merit but you do so without substance? You can CALL it "absurd" and do nothing else over and over again, but calling it absurd does not make it so.

    What you could try, but never once have tried, is to establish an argument as to why we should have moral and ethical concern for something with the exact same moral and ethical attributes of a rock. Rather than just saying it is absurd, explain how and why it is. For once. For the first time. Have at it!
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals

    Take it up with them then, I do not go in for this imported american bi-partisan lingo that you are so often controlled by. Though your comment on boards seems to ignore the result of the referendum entirely which shows that the precentage in Irelands society IN GENERAL is congruent.

    I do not see myself or anyone else in these terms. I just evaluate their arguments in a given context. Which I can not do since you have not actually provided any. Words like "Liberal" are just words you seem to use solely in the context of constructing a persecution complex and persecution narrative for yourself. It is not that you have provided no arguments.... in your head..... it is just that this liberal cohort are all out to get you! Puhh-leeeese.

    When you hide behind attacks on generic and generalised labels like "Liberal" to deflect from the actual topic at hand.... then you are off on your own conversation which I am not part of.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I guess they think your ability to keep posting longwinded needlessly convoluted irrelevant walls of text is somehow a coherent argument. I assure you, it's not. Well, not to anyone with any regard for commonsense at least.

    Same as above when you shout "absurd" without actually making an argument, shouting "common sense" and "incoherent" and "convoluted" and other such words says more about your content than mine. Very much so as it does not refer to anything I said, let alone rebut anything I said, at all. Even a little bit.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.

    You are begging the question with that reply however. It is a circular reply. Further it linguistically shoots yourself in the foot. Because when you are talking about a life they are "likely to have" you are, linguistically, referring to one they do NOT have. However you are begging the question more than anything else here as you are answering the question about why that life should be morally or ethically relevant with an answer that pre-supposes that that life should be morally and ethically relevant. And you have the comedic gall to say MY positions are absurd, incoherent, and convoluted. You are comedy gold here.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being

    Footage that, like your obsession with tongues flapping around, you have set to actually explain the relevance of in anyway. We all know what it LOOKS like. What we do not know is why what it LOOKS like is meant to be at all relevant?
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    to suggest what is seen below is just autonomic movement from a 'blob of biological human shaped matter' (or a 'zygote' at ten weeks - in the case of your good self) is about a ridiculous a view as it is for someone to say that we live on a flat Earth.

    At least the Flat Earthers offer SOME evidence for their views. Easily rebutted evidence sure, but they at least make the attempt. But as with your shouts of "absurd" merely likening a position to Flat Earth without saying WHY it is ridiculous is a weak rhetorical move.

    The simple fact is that without a consciousness or sentience in play then the movements you observe at that early stage of development ARE autonomic. Whether they be hiccuping..... responding to an aural stimulus (like the flapping tongue study you contrived to misrepresent)..... or withdrawing from a pain stimulus like a needle.

    That YOU have emotional responses when you see a fetus move in this way is clear. The basis for your emotional response is couched entirely in error, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of reality however.


  • Options
    #1264
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Thanks Nozz, you just saved me a lot of tedious typing.


  • Options
    #1265
    hcf500
    Registered Users Posts: 173 ✭✭hcf500


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I get the emotive use of the word baby but I took the time to insert the correct term.

    This.

    Its not a baby until it starts breathing!


  • Options
    #1266
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

    Ewwwww! Gross parasite! Kill it!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1267
    hcf500
    Registered Users Posts: 173 ✭✭hcf500


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Ewwwww! Gross parasite! Kill it!!

    You are right. Technically it is a parasite!


  • Options
    #1268
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    hcf500 wrote: »
    You are right. Technically it is a parasite!

    wouldnt call it a "person" until a year after birth tbh


  • Options
    #1269
    Deebles McBeebles
    Registered Users Posts: 5,777 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    Wouldn't call it a person until it gets a damn job. Abortion up to 17 years should be legalised next.


  • Options
    #1270
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,499 ✭✭✭political analyst


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/dispute-delaying-abortion-investigation-goes-to-mediation-1.4136188

    A mediator is to be appointed in a last-ditch effort to resolve disagreements that have delayed the investigation of an abortion carried out at the National Maternity Hospital last year.



    Both the hospital and the couple involved have agreed to the involvement of a mediator to help resolve disagreements that have delayed by more than seven months the promised review into the circumstances of a termination carried out after an incorrect test result.



    The mediator, expected to be a prominent senior barrister, will begin work on the case shortly.


    The couple have objected to the composition of the review panel proposed by the hospital and have argued the investigating team should comprise experts who have no previous professional links to hospital staff, such as consultants from continental Europe.



    The hospital has rejected this proposal, though it has agreed that the couple be allowed to nominate additional experts to the review panel. There have also been disagreements over the provision of medical records in their entirety which have been complicated by difficulties providing printed and complete copies of the woman’s electronic health file.



    Why has the hospital rejected what has been proposed by the couple?


  • Options
    #1271
    margo321
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭margo321


    [and what is it. Is it a shoe a horse. What is it. Is was living then was killed/aborted. The body parts are sold in most countries and guess what as human body parts so like it or not it was a live human baby.

    quote="hcf500;110523092"]This.

    Its not a baby until it starts breathing![/quote]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1272
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Abortion is always a **** storm of a topic.

    Which came first? a person's choice or the egg?

    I've seen friendships shattered over the topic.

    Usually it's the Liberal/SJW types who go postal on the people who don't want abortion.
    Screaming and shouting at the people who disagree with abortion.

    The way I see it, make your choice if you like your body your choice.

    It's an emotional roller coaster.

    Best thing is to accept people's opinion and not drawn unwanted drama on yourself etc


  • Options
    #1273
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nthclare wrote: »
    Abortion is always a **** storm of a topic.

    Which came first? a person's choice or the egg?

    I've seen friendships shattered over the topic.

    Usually it's the Liberal/SJW types who go postal on the people who don't want abortion.
    Screaming and shouting at the people who disagree with abortion.

    The way I see it, make your choice if you like your body your choice.

    It's an emotional roller coaster.

    Best thing is to accept people's opinion and not drawn unwanted drama on yourself etc

    well that is a pisspoor understanding of reality.


  • Options
    #1274
    Redneck Reject71
    Closed Accounts Posts: 586 ✭✭✭Redneck Reject71


    To me it is a very sad story. A life lost before it could really begin.


  • Options
    #1275
    Rufeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 503 ✭✭✭Rufeo


    political analyst wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/dispute-delaying-abortion-investigation-goes-to-mediation-1.4136188










    Co's surely Hospitals here like to cover stuff up. Or stack the deck in their favour.


  • Options
    #1276
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    Some of the popular opinions on abortion are just atrocious, both sides of the argument.

    One of the old chestnuts is posted above, that a life isn't a life until some arbitrary cellular distinction dictated by time (they aren't dependent on each other either)

    What a load of cobblers. Who in their right mind can believe that? :p

    Granted, it brings up serious conundrums with birth control, but this arbitrary thing is crazy. If somebody "believes" that life begins at 5 weeks, for arguments sake, how do they feel about 4 weeks and 4 days?

    What about 1 second to midnight on the 5th week? 2 minutes after?

    A spade is a spade, except when i choose to believe it isn't.

    Whatever about all the other controversy surrounding abortion, this particular "belief" barely withstands the scrutiny of an eye-less, ear-less bat. The psychology behind such a thing must be somewhat interesting, that if you (literally) dehumanise a "thing", it's far, far easier to manipulate it. Huh!


  • Options
    #1277
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well that is a pisspoor understanding of reality.

    Your word salad is much more bitter than mine, add some sugar and sweeten up cupcake :)


  • Options
    #1278
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nthclare wrote: »
    Your word salad is much more bitter than mine, add some sugar and sweeten up cupcake :)

    try reconstructing an argument instead of telling other people what their opinions are.


  • Options
    #1279
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    try reconstructing an argument instead of telling other people what their opinions are.

    Ironic coming from that post lapping up the thanks I see


  • Options
    #1280
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,401 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    political analyst wrote: »
    The couple have objected to the composition of the review panel proposed by the hospital and have argued the investigating team should comprise experts who have no previous professional links to hospital staff, such as consultants from continental Europe.
    Why has the hospital rejected what has been proposed by the couple?

    cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things


  • Options
    #1281
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    beejee wrote: »
    One of the old chestnuts is posted above, that a life isn't a life until some arbitrary cellular distinction dictated by time (they aren't dependent on each other either)

    Then the goal should be to find a distinction that is less arbitrary. SOME distinction has to be chosen after all as there clearly must be a divide somewhere. So the best we can do is strive for the least arbitrary and most coherent divide we can use.

    It should be one that accounts for the fact the word "life" has at least two distinct but equally important meanings in this context.

    It should be one that is defensible by rational argument too. Supporting ones position, or rebutting someone elses, merely by appeal to phrases like "right mind" "crazy" "cobblers" "blind bat" is rarely indicative that such arguments are in play from the speaker of those phrases.

    However when it comes to law and policy SOME arbitrary nature is always in play. It is never perfect. So let us not pretend it needs to be! Take, as a random example, the fact we allow alcohol at age 18. Why not 17 and 364 days? "What about 1 second to midnight? 2 minutes after?" to use your words? The reality is SOME people are ready for alcohol at age 16. Others I know at age 40 should still never have touched the stuff.
    beejee wrote: »
    Whatever about all the other controversy surrounding abortion, this particular "belief" barely withstands the scrutiny of an eye-less, ear-less bat. The psychology behind such a thing must be somewhat interesting, that if you (literally) dehumanise a "thing", it's far, far easier to manipulate it. Huh!

    I find the charge of "dehumanization" to be a common but unfounded one on threads like this. What is ACTUALLY happening too often is someone has humanized it before it's due, in an unwarranted fashion. And rather than validate that move they merely pretend their position is default and true, and any contrary position they merely scream "dehumanization" at it in the hope that the charge sticks like flinging spaghetti at a wall.

    Yet one can not dehumanize something that should never have been humanized in the first place. You can not uncook a raw egg. Certainly not by merely pretending the egg has been cooked and merely accusing anyone who disagrees of uncooking it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1282
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    "Man's inhumanity to man"


  • Options
    #1283
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things


    They are lining up for a compo case.


  • Options
    #1284
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,499 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Rufeo wrote: »
    Co's surely Hospitals here like to cover stuff up. Or stack the deck in their favour.

    But the hospital must have told the baby's parents why it's not doing what they want it to, right?! I'm sure that the threat of legal action might concentrate its mind.


  • Options
    #1285
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,499 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things

    Videoconferencing would solve those problems, wouldn't it?


  • Options
    #1286
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things

    It could be more along the lines of the "experts" in mind.


  • Options
    #1287
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Then the goal should be to find a distinction that is less arbitrary. SOME distinction has to be chosen after all as there clearly must be a divide somewhere. So the best we can do is strive for the least arbitrary and most coherent divide we can use.

    It should be one that accounts for the fact the word "life" has at least two distinct but equally important meanings in this context.

    It should be one that is defensible by rational argument too. Supporting ones position, or rebutting someone elses, merely by appeal to phrases like "right mind" "crazy" "cobblers" "blind bat" is rarely indicative that such arguments are in play from the speaker of those phrases.

    However when it comes to law and policy SOME arbitrary nature is always in play. It is never perfect. So let us not pretend it needs to be! Take, as a random example, the fact we allow alcohol at age 18. Why not 17 and 364 days? "What about 1 second to midnight? 2 minutes after?" to use your words? The reality is SOME people are ready for alcohol at age 16. Others I know at age 40 should still never have touched the stuff.



    I find the charge of "dehumanization" to be a common but unfounded one on threads like this. What is ACTUALLY happening too often is someone has humanized it before it's due, in an unwarranted fashion. And rather than validate that move they merely pretend their position is default and true, and any contrary position they merely scream "dehumanization" at it in the hope that the charge sticks like flinging spaghetti at a wall.

    Yet one can not dehumanize something that should never have been humanized in the first place. You can not uncook a raw egg. Certainly not by merely pretending the egg has been cooked and merely accusing anyone who disagrees of uncooking it.

    I'll 100% stand behind my use of the likes of "cobblers" and "crazy", because arbitrarily assigning a social construct to the natural world is, indeed, cobblers and crazy.

    In your rambling reply you go straight to social constructs of law to justify random ideas. It's a dreadful comparison. Biology and science are not dictated by feelings, and when you apply social construct, it is essentially feelings and emotion.

    Life begins at cellular fusion. End of story. Argue about laws all you like, it won't alter the fact of the matter.

    If you intervene at any stage after cellular fusion, you are preventing life from continuing it's course. It brings up the ethical question of birth control, but that's an extra issue to the one at hand.

    And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history, and it will occur on microscales within individual lives too. The nazis dehumanised Jewish people in order to make it "easier" to do away with them, and it worked. What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.

    Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.


  • Options
    #1288
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    beejee wrote: »
    I'll 100% stand behind my use of the likes of "cobblers" and "crazy", because arbitrarily assigning a social construct to the natural world is, indeed, cobblers and crazy.

    In your rambling reply you go straight to social constructs of law to justify random ideas. It's a dreadful comparison. Biology and science are not dictated by feelings, and when you apply social construct, it is essentially feelings and emotion.

    Life begins at cellular fusion. End of story. Argue about laws all you like, it won't alter the fact of the matter.

    If you intervene at any stage after cellular fusion, you are preventing life from continuing it's course. It brings up the ethical question of birth control, but that's an extra issue to the one at hand.

    And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history, and it will occur on microscales within individual lives too. The nazis dehumanised Jewish people in order to make it "easier" to do away with them, and it worked. What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.

    Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.

    I don't think many can debunk that post.
    Society is saturated with manipulation of the truth.
    And its not a big ploy for power over the people or some kind of conspiracy theory.

    Its just human nature to use tippex to cover the unwanted issues or opinions, there's still ink underneath.

    Or the person who comes up with a great idea for something that makes life easier and its stolen from them, some say well he should have patented it, others will say your man's a bad bstrd for stealing that idea.

    Its human nature to be different and sometimes people are dishonest and just agree for fear of retribution and live with the lie.
    So as not to upset the people who don't care about them in the first place.
    Trying to fit in.

    I love metaphorical thinking about things.


  • Options
    #1289
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    beejee wrote: »
    I'll 100% stand behind my use of the likes of "cobblers" and "crazy", because arbitrarily assigning a social construct to the natural world is, indeed, cobblers and crazy.

    And I stand by the response that if calling it names is all you can do, and you can not rebut it with actual argument, then you have no actual point to make. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.

    As I said we take somewhat arbitrary cut off points all the time in law and in policy. Out of necessity. If there was a better way we would likely use it, but no one has proposed one yet. Age of consent. Legality of Alcohol. Age of voting. Cut off points in abortion. The list goes on.

    Thankfully rather than just flinging labels and insults however, these cut off points tend to be based on SOME level of rational argument, evidence, data and reasoning.
    beejee wrote: »
    In your rambling reply you go straight to social constructs of law to justify random ideas. It's a dreadful comparison. Biology and science are not dictated by feelings, and when you apply social construct, it is essentially feelings and emotion.

    Your lack of ability to understand text does not mean the text is rambling. It was perfectly coherent. You just like demeaning labels to rebut things you can not rebut with reason.

    The problem is no one here, least of all me, is suggesting "Biology and science are dictated by feelings". That is just your misrepresentation of what was said. Put away the straw.

    No, in fact I preempted that non-reply by pointing out that it is important to understand the difference in the word "life" in seperate contexts. Because there is a difference between "life" as defined by biology and science.... and "life" as in the philosophical meaning. While the former has little to do with human feeling and subjectivity, the latter somewhat does. You ignore the very distinction I expressely recommended you note therefore.
    beejee wrote: »
    Life begins at cellular fusion. End of story. Argue about laws all you like, it won't alter the fact of the matter.

    Yet no one is taking issue with that "fact" at all. Least of all me. I certainly COULD take some issue with it if you want as it is not as clear cut as you pretend. But the point(s) I have made to you in the previous post have nothing to do with that, so there is no reason to take issue with it or argue it at all.
    beejee wrote: »
    If you intervene at any stage after cellular fusion, you are preventing life from continuing it's course. It brings up the ethical question of birth control, but that's an extra issue to the one at hand.

    A big "so what?" has to be flung in the direction of that however. We "prevent life from continuing it's course" all the time. We cut down trees. Kill animals for meat. Use Anti Biotics and pesticides. Swat wasps and flies. And so on. We are n the business of "preventing life from continuing it's course" every day, in the billions.

    So if one wants to argue that any particular life should not be discontinued, or that it is somehow morally or ethically wrong to do so, then you need a philosophical and ethical argument with more substance than merely screaming the word "life" at the problem.
    beejee wrote: »
    And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history

    Agreed. It has. But just because it occured THEN does not mean it is occuring HERE. You are deflecting in other words. Like a conspiracy theorist who if you doubt HIS particular conspiracy, merely points out OTHER conspiracies have existed and been proven. Yes. They have. So what? That does not lend ANY credence to HIS conspiracy.

    Similarly if you want to change the subject to OTHER situations where dehumanization has been perfprmed historically then so be it. But that does not lend ANY credence to your claim it has happened HERE. If you want to argue it is happening HERE then let's do that. You have not substantiated that point yet however.

    In order to argue that, say, an 8 week old fetus is being "dehumanized" you need to establish it is warranted to "humanize" it in the first place. This you have not done. And appeals to biological taxonomy are not going to carry that point for you.
    beejee wrote: »
    What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.

    Yet no guilt is warranted, so no methodology to avoid guilt is required. Unless you can establish a moral or ethical reason why termination of a 12 week old fetus is something that requires guilt, then no method for avoiding guilt is required. This you have not done. Shouting the word "life" is not going to do it either.
    beejee wrote: »
    Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.

    It is not as complicated as you pretend. When "life" begins is simply not a relevant factor in the moral or ethical issue related to it. That's all I'm saying.


  • Options
    #1290
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And I stand by the response that if calling it names is all you can do, and you can not rebut it with actual argument, then you have no actual point to make. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.

    As I said we take somewhat arbitrary cut off points all the time in law and in policy. Out of necessity. If there was a better way we would likely use it, but no one has proposed one yet. Age of consent. Legality of Alcohol. Age of voting. Cut off points in abortion. The list goes on.

    Thankfully rather than just flinging labels and insults however, these cut off points tend to be based on SOME level of rational argument, evidence, data and reasoning.



    Your lack of ability to understand text does not mean the text is rambling. It was perfectly coherent. You just like demeaning labels to rebut things you can not rebut with reason.

    The problem is no one here, least of all me, is suggesting "Biology and science are dictated by feelings". That is just your misrepresentation of what was said. Put away the straw.

    No, in fact I preempted that non-reply by pointing out that it is important to understand the difference in the word "life" in seperate contexts. Because there is a difference between "life" as defined by biology and science.... and "life" as in the philosophical meaning. While the former has little to do with human feeling and subjectivity, the latter somewhat does. You ignore the very distinction I expressely recommended you note therefore.



    Yet no one is taking issue with that "fact" at all. Least of all me. I certainly COULD take some issue with it if you want as it is not as clear cut as you pretend. But the point(s) I have made to you in the previous post have nothing to do with that, so there is no reason to take issue with it or argue it at all.



    A big "so what?" has to be flung in the direction of that however. We "prevent life from continuing it's course" all the time. We cut down trees. Kill animals for meat. Use Anti Biotics and pesticides. Swat wasps and flies. And so on. We are n the business of "preventing life from continuing it's course" every day, in the billions.

    So if one wants to argue that any particular life should not be discontinued, or that it is somehow morally or ethically wrong to do so, then you need a philosophical and ethical argument with more substance than merely screaming the word "life" at the problem.



    Agreed. It has. But just because it occured THEN does not mean it is occuring HERE. You are deflecting in other words. Like a conspiracy theorist who if you doubt HIS particular conspiracy, merely points out OTHER conspiracies have existed and been proven. Yes. They have. So what? That does not lend ANY credence to HIS conspiracy.

    Similarly if you want to change the subject to OTHER situations where dehumanization has been perfprmed historically then so be it. But that does not lend ANY credence to your claim it has happened HERE. If you want to argue it is happening HERE then let's do that. You have not substantiated that point yet however.

    In order to argue that, say, an 8 week old fetus is being "dehumanized" you need to establish it is warranted to "humanize" it in the first place. This you have not done. And appeals to biological taxonomy are not going to carry that point for you.



    Yet no guilt is warranted, so no methodology to avoid guilt is required. Unless you can establish a moral or ethical reason why termination of a 12 week old fetus is something that requires guilt, then no method for avoiding guilt is required. This you have not done. Shouting the word "life" is not going to do it either.



    It is not as complicated as you pretend. When "life" begins is simply not a relevant factor in the moral or ethical issue related to it. That's all I'm saying.

    Calling it names is all I can do?

    I can't rebut anything?

    You once again revert to social construct, again try to muddy the waters by bringing in philosophy and ethics, yet more social construct... All to counter a simple biological fact?

    My explanation is concise, efficient and coherent.

    Your position is destroyed. It was an untenable position to begin with, and it looks hokier the more paragraphs you add to it.

    Life begins at fusion. Human interpretation designed for convenience won't alter the fact. 200 years from now, interpretation will change, multiple times over probably. Your philosophy will change, your ethics will change. Feelings change.

    The fundamentals of biology will not change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1291
    Lonesomerhodes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 515 ✭✭✭Lonesomerhodes


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/holles-st-review-termination-of-pregnancy-4639179-May2019/




    interesting one. Docs obviously fecked up test but mother didn't want a dodgy baby

    Least you called it what it is a baby.


    Rather than the pro abortion folk, a clump of cells or a blob of this or that as if it could magically turn into a pheasant when it comes out!.

    We all know it's a baby deep down.


Advertisement