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

Legalise abortion

1…1314161819…40

Comments

  • #452
    legatti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭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


  • #453
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #454
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #455
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    Abortion is murder,end of story.
    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    In most cases it is unjustifiable.

    :rolleyes::D
    So when is it justifiable?


  • #456
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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?


  • #458
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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


  • #459
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #460
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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.


  • #461
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • #463
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #464
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #465
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #466
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #467
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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.


  • #468
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #469
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #470
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #471
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #473
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #474
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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.


  • #475
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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?


  • #476
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭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.


  • #477
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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


  • #478
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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?


  • #479
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #480
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Sperm and eggs are potential humans.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement