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.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.
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?
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.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals
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.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being
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.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » I get the emotive use of the word baby but I took the time to insert the correct term.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo
suicide_circus wrote: » Ewwwww! Gross parasite! Kill it!!
hcf500 wrote: » You are right. Technically it is a parasite!
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.
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
political analyst wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/dispute-delaying-abortion-investigation-goes-to-mediation-1.4136188
ohnonotgmail wrote: » well that is a pisspoor understanding of reality.
nthclare wrote: » Your word salad is much more bitter than mine, add some sugar and sweeten up cupcake
ohnonotgmail wrote: » try reconstructing an argument instead of telling other people what their opinions are.
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?
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.
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)
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!
Quantum Erasure wrote: » cost maybe, availability of experts ... they probably have set procedures for these kinds of things
Rufeo wrote: » Co's surely Hospitals here like to cover stuff up. Or stack the deck in their favour.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
beejee wrote: » And I absolutely tend toward the idea of dehumanisation. It has occurred countless times throughout history
beejee wrote: » What better way to avoid guilt over abortion than to dehumanise it? It's a proven strategy.
beejee wrote: » Abortion is a complicated issue. When life begins is not. That's all I'm saying.
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.
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
