nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Legalise abortion

SLUSK

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

legatti

i agree to legalise abortion, will stop the irish going over to england to get the procedure done and take the strain off the nhs by doing so,
BUT OP.. your chatting multi amounts of sh*t about criminals
people who commit crimes dont have a profile that all or a good proportion come from unwed parents.
marriage is dying a death anyway.. and so it should be... load of rubbish and ultimatly stems from property anyway,

it will never happen in ireland though, the church have too much of a hold here

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

But it can't put their position into question unless they define the valuable part of humanity as the thing a baby doesn't have?

Actually he did. Babies (infants) do not posses a consciousness that gives them the ability to conceive rights (Nozz's litmus test). This is a physical limitation as their brains have not yet formed to a level that would accommodate such a facility.

Arguing that it's not "operating on the same level" as the rest of us is just weasel-wordage. It's not "operating on the same level" because it ain't there yet. Or with those who have severe brain damage, because it ain't there any more. Or with those who have severe mental handicaps from birth, because it ain't there and it ain't going to be.

So either you hold by your definition, or you make exceptions to it. And if you start making multiple exceptions, then you need to start to question whether your original definition was a good one.

And this is what I pointed out to Nozz, about two months ago in this thread.

RepublicanEagle

Abortion is murder,end of story.What other term can you use when a human takes the life of another human being, intentionally but also as a premeditated action?In most cases it is unjustifiable.

drkpower

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Abortion is murder,end of story.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

In most cases it is unjustifiable.

:rolleyes::D
So when is it justifiable?

RepublicanEagle

drkpower wrote: »

:rolleyes::D
So when is it justifiable?

If the birth will inevitably lead to the death of the mother and child,due to medical complications.

drkpower

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

If the birth will inevitably lead to the death of the mother and child,due to medical complications.

What if it will will probably lead to the death of the mother and child,due to medical complications?

RepublicanEagle

drkpower wrote: »

What if it will will probably lead to the death of the mother and child,due to medical complications?

Isn't that what I just said.........You were expecting a Bible to be thrown perhaps as well? PMSL

The Corinthian

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Abortion is murder,end of story.What other term can you use when a human takes the life of another human being,

Manslaughter, self-defence, justifiable or sanctioned homicide (typically capital punishment) and - my personal favourite - collateral damage.

intentionally but also as a premeditated action?

Bit of a tautology there.

In most cases it is unjustifiable.

Hmmm... I don't think you've thought what you wrote out too well.

To begin with you're assuming that it is a human being - this discussion here has been precisely about that. Then even if human, it does not necessarily have a right to life, or one that supersedes the rights of the mother. Even you accept there are exceptions to the rule.

So the debate is not so black and white as even I would have thought when I was young enough to know everything.

drkpower

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Isn't that what I just said.........You were expecting a Bible to be thrown perhaps as well? PMSL

hmmmm... no.:p

'inevitably' v 'probably' - you might want to get yourself a dictionary.

And while looking at it, check 'possibly', and then answer the questions asked.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually he did. Babies (infants) do not posses a consciousness that gives them the ability to conceive rights (Nozz's litmus test). This is a physical limitation as their brains have not yet formed to a level that would accommodate such a facility.

Fair enough.

If that was his litmus test but he was still arguing that babies have a right to life, then he was arguing a contradictory, and rather silly, position.

He needs to either drop his claim that babies have the right to life, or change his litmus test to include babies.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

If that was his litmus test but he was still arguing that babies have a right to life, then he was arguing a contradictory, and rather silly, position.

He needs to either drop his claim that babies have the right to life, or change his litmus test to include babies.

It's difficult to say as he's been incredibly obtuse if not downright slippery with any definition of a litmus test.

If you think I have misunderstood his definition, please feel free to explain it in such a way that a simpleton such as myself can comprehend it

RepublicanEagle

drkpower wrote: »

'inevitably' v 'probably' - you might want to get yourself a dictionary.

Inevitably refers to a situation that is unavoidable,hence you need to look uo the term.I suggest that you should approach this more carefuly,before you embarass yourself....again

Anyway,you are going off-topic,it is obvious you want to get personal about this.

RepublicanEagle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Manslaughter, self-defence, justifiable or sanctioned homicide (typically capital punishment) and - my personal favourite - collateral damage.

It is insensitive and extremely narrow-minded to lump abortion into this list.An obvious trolling attempt.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with you're assuming that it is a human being - this discussion here has been precisely about that. Then even if human, it does not necessarily have a right to life, or one that supersedes the rights of the mother. Even you accept there are exceptions to the rule.

The baby is human.It should not be open to interpretation.

The Corinthian

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

It is insensitive and extremely narrow-minded to lump abortion into this list.An obvious trolling attempt.

Why is it insensitive and extremely narrow-minded to point out that we do not always consider killing a person to be murder?

And please don't confuse logic with trolling, btw. Especially when only designed to discredit an argument you have no rational rebuttal for.
There's no trolling in that, it is purely stating a logical fact.

The baby is human.It should not be open to interpretation.

Really? Define a human being. Given that it "should not be open to interpretation", it should be easy for you.

RepublicanEagle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why is it insensitive and extremely narrow-minded to point out that we do not always consider killing a person to be murder?

The Corinthian wrote: »

logic with trolling, btw. Especially when only designed to discredit an argument you have no rational rebuttal for.There's no trolling in that, it is purely stating a logical fact.

Do you mind explaining the logic of categorizing abortion into the list you previously posted?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really? Define a human being. Given that it "should not be open to interpretation", it should be easy for you.

A human being is a member of the human race,be they man,women or infant.

metrovelvet

Murder is a legal term. Killing another human being is not always illegal, as in warfare, self defence,and sometimes neither,depending on who is holding the gun or the needle.

Then you have accidental deaths and manslaughter.

RepublicanEagle

metrovelvet wrote: »

Murder is a legal term. Killing another human being is not always illegal.

Then you would agree that an infant in the womb is a human being?Which is what the majority of these pro-abortionists are trying to deny.

The Corinthian

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Do you mind explaining the logic of categorizing abortion into the list you previously posted?

Metro has responded to this question.

A human being is a member of the human race,be they man,women or infant.

You've just defined a human being as a being a member of the human race, which is a bit circular. You'll need to be more specific.

RepublicanEagle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Metro has responded to this question.

You've just defined a human being as a being a member of the human race, which is a bit circular. You'll need to be more specific.

There is nothing circular about it,you were just hoping my definition would be weak and would be easy to argue against.This defenition does not need to be more specific.Sorry to dissappoint you.

The Corinthian

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

There is nothing circular about it,you were just hoping my definition would be weak and would be easy to argue against.This defenition does not need to be more specific.Sorry to dissappoint you.

It's either circular or it is poorly defined - you choose.

All you have essentially argued that a human being is defined by virtue of being a human being. That is a circular definition and is frankly meaningless.

If you meant something on the lines of a human being being defined on a biological or genetic level as a human being, then you will need to be more specific as it is a wholly inadequate definition. After all, is a human corpse, a human being?

RepublicanEagle

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's either circular or it is poorly defined - you choose.

No,that is your opinion.

The Corinthian wrote: »

All you have essentially argued that a human being is defined by virtue of being a human being. That is a circular definition and is frankly meaningless.

Again,no,that is your opinion.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you meant something on the lines of a human being being defined on a biological or genetic level as a human being, then you will need to be more specific as it is a wholly inadequate definition. After all, is a human corpse, a human being?

A human corpse is the remains of a deceased human being,so technically,yes it is/was a human being.

The Corinthian wrote: »

the lines of a human being being defined on a biological or genetic level as a human being

No,correction,you must be more specific.

The Corinthian

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

No,that is your opinion.

I think you'll find I've done a fair bit more than simply give an opinion. Principally, I have backed up anything I have said to you with a rational argument, which is more than you have done to date, I fear.

A human corpse is the remains of a deceased human being,so technically,yes it is/was a human being.

Sorry, is or was? You appear to be confused.

Does that mean that a corpse shares the same rights as a live human? If not does that not mean that being a biological human being alone does not suffice as a definition?

I don't mean to be offensive, but you do not seem to have really thought out what you are saying.

metrovelvet

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Then you would agree that an infant in the womb is a human being?Which is what the majority of these pro-abortionists are trying to deny.

Yes I would agree with that. The pro abortionist, in general doesnt want to tackle the unsavory and untidy idea of mothers killing their children in utero, because then they have to defend mothers who kill their kids, and who the hell wants to do that? So its tidier just to say they arent human. No one likes the moral sewer.

drkpower

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Inevitably refers to a situation that is unavoidable,hence you need to look uo the term.I suggest that you should approach this more carefuly,before you embarass yourself....again

Anyway,you are going off-topic,it is obvious you want to get personal about this.

Personal...?!:D

You suggested inevitable and probable were the same thing. Is that what you believe?

But back to my question: What if it will will probably lead to the death of the mother and child,due to medical complications?

RepublicanEagle

drkpower wrote: »

Personal...?!:D

You suggested inevitable and probable were the same thing. Is that what you believe?

But back to my question: What if it will will probably lead to the death of the mother and child,due to medical complications?

Since you are so intent on having me clarify my answer even further,then yes,abortion should be allowed ONLY under those circumstances.

Flamed Diving

SLUSK wrote: »

Did you ever read Freakonomics?.....

That paper has been largely discredited, due to endogeneity issues, I believe.

Some papers which punched the holes:

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue/Joyce%20(2004).pdf

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0515.pdf

drkpower

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Since you are so intent on having me clarify my answer even further,then yes,abortion should be allowed ONLY under those circumstances.

Its a discussion forum, people ask each other questions, you know, and then get them to clarify their positions.....:P

So, in your view, abortion is justifiable if otherwise the mothers death is inevitable or probable.

What order of probability? 51%?
What about if her death is possible?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I would agree with that. The pro abortionist, in general doesnt want to tackle the unsavory and untidy idea of mothers killing their children in utero, because then they have to defend mothers who kill their kids, and who the hell wants to do that? So its tidier just to say they arent human. No one likes the moral sewer.

I've no trouble defending a mother who kills their embryo.

I killed approx 4 million sperm last night. I didn't get all worked up about it. No one charged me for genocide.

Are sperm not human? If they aren't human can you tell me what species they are? Equus ferus caballus perhaps?

metrovelvet

No they aren't human. Just as the egg I dispose of once a month is not.

I'm glad you have no problem with women killing their embryos. Im guessing if half that embryo were yours you might think differently. Or maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you really wouldn't care. There are people out there like that.

Flamed Diving

Sperm and eggs are potential humans.