Keep abortion out of Ireland

Zombrex · 23-03-2012 10:14am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I gotta say that I see it. Fanny quote's qrrgprgua's post and, on examination, right enought, the words she attributes to qrrgprgua's post do in fact appear there: "The Fertilized egg is a person."

By contrast, what you say about qrrgprgua's position ("Your definition of a "person" seems to be based on the supernatural concept of a soul") doesn't seem to me to be based on anything in qrrgprgua's post. There is no common concept of "soul" in which "soul" = "fertilised egg".

Actually that is a very common concept, particularly in Christianity, that the fertilized egg is a person because the soul enters the body at conception and it is the presence of a soul that makes a person a person.

Qrrgprgua didn't mention one way or another why he thinks the fertilized egg is a person in the post I quoted. But based on previous posts of his, and this being the common Christian idea of when personhood starts, that is the position I attributed to him.

So again I'm not sure how Fanny would think he was saying something very different to what I attributed to him? Perhaps Qrrgprgua can clear up that he picks conception for other reasons as the start of personhood.

Festus · 23-03-2012 5:15pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Qrrgprgua didn't mention one way or another why he thinks the fertilized egg is a person in the post I quoted. But based on previous posts of his, and this being the common Christian idea of when personhood starts, that is the position I attributed to him.

Is there a need to constantly refer back to the medical and scientific evidence that a fertilized egg is a human being and the life of every human being starts with a fertilized egg?

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

qrrgprgua · 23-03-2012 8:49pm

@ Festus. post #453

Exactly. Excellent post. Its important we respect life, its existence and its beginning. Humanity is not a bed of lettuce where we weed out the weak and deformed. Each person who begins the path in life should be afforded the same respect.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 12:17am

Festus wrote: »

Is there a need to constantly refer back to the medical and scientific evidence that a fertilized egg is a human being and the life of every human being starts with a fertilized egg?

No more than the need to constantly refer back to the medical and scientific evidence that the sperm and egg are human.

lmaopml · 24-03-2012 2:44am

I think that the debate really should be about the potential of the life that has been set in motion, and what that 'potential' means and it's 'value', and how people place or define 'value' -

it seems to me that there is an inconsistency about 'choice' to terminate a potential being and where that begins and ends. The line is murky, except from the 'baddies' side that says all human life is valuable once set in motion and has a right to fulfill it's potential.

Morag · 24-03-2012 2:49am

Ireland already has abortion.
Every year medical and surgical procedures are carried out to end pregnancy and that is what abortion is. But you never hear anyone talk about how this is done legally and ethically.

There are medical conditions for which the treatment is to end the pregnancy, to abort the pregnancy and Irish women don't have to travel for this to happen but you never hear the RCC or any pro life group saying that ectopic pregnancies should never be aborted.

So there is a forum of legal abortion which gets carried out as a matter of course in this country and it happens in all our maternity hospitals and units across the country and has done for decades.

It is factually wrong to say there is no abortion is Ireland.

lmaopml · 24-03-2012 2:58am

Sharrow wrote: »

Ireland already has abortion.
Every year medical and surgical procedures are carried out to end pregnancy and that is what abortion is. But you never hear anyone talk about how this is done legally and ethically.

There are medical conditions for which the treatment is to end the pregnancy, to abort the pregnancy and Irish women don't have to travel for this to happen but you never hear the RCC or any pro life group saying that ectopic pregnancies should never be aborted.

So there is a forum of legal abortion which gets carried out as a matter of course in this country and it happens in all our maternity hospitals and units across the country and has done for decades.

It is factually wrong to say there is no abortion is Ireland.

That is truth, it's tied up in our 'laws' - it does happen, but not the same thing as a 'right' to same.

qrrgprgua · 24-03-2012 10:34am

Sharrow wrote: »

Ireland already has abortion.
Every year medical and surgical procedures are carried out to end pregnancy and that is what abortion is. But you never hear anyone talk about how this is done legally and ethically.

There are medical conditions for which the treatment is to end the pregnancy, to abort the pregnancy and Irish women don't have to travel for this to happen but you never hear the RCC or any pro life group saying that ectopic pregnancies should never be aborted.

So there is a forum of legal abortion which gets carried out as a matter of course in this country and it happens in all our maternity hospitals and units across the country and has done for decades.

It is factually wrong to say there is no abortion is Ireland.

A friend had to have her pregnancy terminated because it was ectopic.
Was it morally, religiously, medically right? Yes. The Doctor did not set out to abort this baby, that was not his intention. His intention was to save the mothers life, as neither her not the baby would survive.

This procedure is already provided for on the law today in Ireland. Nobody is saying doctors should not treat a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy. But lets be clear we are still taking about a mother loosing her child, my Friend sill grieved. But this was morally right, the end of the procedure was not abortion it was the right medical care for both parties.

But this does not mean that elective abortion should be introduced in Ireland. Aborting downs Syndrome babies live in the UK where 80% of Downs Children a murdered, its a reality.

What is wrong is to target the Child for Abortion because of X Y Z, this is wrong. Each person has the right to be respected.

Most abortions are of women under 25 in the uk and in the 1st trimester. Generally and unwanted pregnancy. What does this say about our society? What underpins it? Sex is for pleasure, no commitment... and if something goes wrong I can always deal with it.

No wonder over the past decade there has been a substantial increase in diagnoses of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the UK, particularly among young people.

Benny_Cake · 24-03-2012 3:42pm

There is a lengthy article in today's Irish Times giving the perspectives of a number of women who have been through it. It's sad reading, regardless of one's position on the subject:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0324/1224313801571.html?via=mr

qrrgprgua · 24-03-2012 3:51pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is a lengthy article in today's Irish Times giving the perspectives of a number of women who have been through it. It's sad reading, regardless of one's position on the subject:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0324/1224313801571.html?via=mr

Doctors said to the Sactorum family that their baby would not survive and if she did she would not survive long...

She is still alive.. and no less a person than any of us. Being handicapped is not a reason to kill a child.

She has edwards syndrome.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 6:32pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Being handicapped is not a reason to kill a child.

Knowing your child will have a 99% chance of having a short life full of suffering before eventually dying due to a painful heart attack though would be a very very strong reason not to have one in the first place though.

The idea that you should not abort an embryo (ie a collection of cells) with Edwards syndrome and instead allow that embryo to grow into a child that feels and experiences pain simply to adhere to your own personal religious convictions is to my mind so selfishly barbaric as to border on the criminal.

Wh1stler · 24-03-2012 8:03pm

I don't see what the problem is.

By definition, people are evil and are unlikely to attain salvation.

If a person begins at conception then surely all aborted pregnancies result in a free pass to eternal life.

Which is better from a parent's point of view; go through with the pregnacy, give birth to a sinner who lives for his/her three score and ten then suffers for eternity minus three score and ten or to send the unborn person to reside with God for all eternity?

Given that choice at conception, wouldn't we all choose to be aborted?

qrrgprgua · 24-03-2012 9:25pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Knowing your child will have a 99% chance of having a short life full of suffering before eventually dying due to a painful heart attack though would be a very very strong reason not to have one in the first place though.

The idea that you should not abort an embryo (ie a collection of cells) with Edwards syndrome and instead allow that embryo to grow into a child that feels and experiences pain simply to adhere to your own personal religious convictions is to my mind so selfishly barbaric as to border on the criminal.

Wh1stler wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is.

By definition, people are evil and are unlikely to attain salvation.

If a person begins at conception then surely all aborted pregnancies result in a free pass to eternal life.

Which is better from a parent's point of view; go through with the pregnacy, give birth to a sinner who lives for his/her three score and ten then suffers for eternity minus three score and ten or to send the unborn person to reside with God for all eternity?

Given that choice at conception, wouldn't we all choose to be aborted?

So it boils down to what people think about other People. I think my child will probably be handicapped.. I kill it. This is the whole problem with abortion. We take away the dignity of the person and make decisions based on what we think is their value..

Are you saying that Santorums Daughter, the fact that she lived and still does is Barbaric? Is that what you think of them?

I think any parent who aborts their child is barbaric. This is a big difference of a Doctor saying the Child might die to the Child actually dying to killing the child.

Festus · 24-03-2012 10:31pm

Ectopic pregnancies never survive.

The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, in fact none of the normal methods of abortion are applicable.

Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies where the embryo has implanted usually inside the fallopian tube and always outside the uterus. If this is allowed to continue the growing child will burst the tube and die. Almost immediatley following this the mother goes into shock from internal bleeding and can die if not hospitalized immediately.

Once an ectopic pregnancy is detected the treatement is to remove the the abnormal pregnancy and if required the fallopian tube. This does mean that the growing child will die but the fact remains that in these cases the child never survives.

Festus · 24-03-2012 10:35pm

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that you should not abort an embryo (ie a collection of cells)

An embyo is no more a collection of cells than you are. I think you will agree that while you are a collection of cells you are a reasonably well organised collection of cells for the most part.

You are probably confusing the morula and blastocyst stages which exist before the woman knows she is pregnant.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 10:40pm

Festus wrote: »

An embyo is no more a collection of cells than you are.

I have developed a brain, a nervous system, a sensory system and all the other wonderful features that allow me to think, feel and experience various things, among them pain.

An embryo has none of these things. It can no more think about pain than it can feel pain in the first place.

The idea that you would keep a small collection of cells alive long enough for all these features to develop, for a person to come into being, just so you can watch it suffer and die is disgusting.

Festus wrote: »

I think you will agree that while you are a collection of cells you are a reasonably well organised collection of cells for the most part.

Not when I was just an embryo. No brain. No nervous system. No ability to think or feel. No person. Just a bunch of cells.

Festus · 24-03-2012 10:42pm

Wh1stler wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is.

By definition, people are evil and are unlikely to attain salvation.

Original Sin does not equal evil. No one is born evil, evil is something we are aware of because of Original Sin however it is always our choice whether or not we choose to remain in sin.

Wh1stler wrote: »

If a person begins at conception then surely all aborted pregnancies result in a free pass to eternal life.

We all get to eternal life however we need to be baptised for Heaven to be an option. Children who die before being baptised are at the mercy of God.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Which is better from a parent's point of view; go through with the pregnacy, give birth to a sinner who lives for his/her three score and ten then suffers for eternity minus three score and ten or to send the unborn person to reside with God for all eternity?

We're all born with sin so the only option is to give birth and have the child baptised.
Besides if we took your option the human race would cease to exist and all parents would be murderers

Wh1stler wrote: »

Given that choice at conception, wouldn't we all choose to be aborted?

We don't get that choice. If we did we could always choose not the be conceived but given that we don't exist until we are conceived I think you should be able to see the problem with that.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 10:51pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So it boils down to what people think about other People. I think my child will probably be handicapped.. I kill it.

Yup. As you said yourself, the key point is "will" be handicapped. Not is handicapped. The person does not exist yet. No one, not even the most dye in the wool anti-abortion crusader really thinks of an embryo as an actual child.

Why in God's name (when in Rome) would you choose to bring into existence a sentient being who's only experience on Earth will be suffering for her short life and then death.

I can't believe how selfish some people can be in this area. It is like the couple who know there is a very strong chance their children will have a hideous genetic disease but who have children anyway cause well they want children and sure isn't what the parent wants far more important than the suffering of the children they might have.

Or the woman on social welfare who can barely afford to pay for the 12 kids she already has, but sure why should that stop her from having a few more from different lads she meets at the back of the chipper. Sure the government will pay for the kids won't they, and she "loves" children.

While people may have a right to have kids I wish, wish wish wish more parents would stop and think for a minute and ask themselves is it the right thing to do to bring the kids they want into this world. Are they doing it for the kids, or are they doing it for themselves.

The latter unfortunately seems to be the answer in the majority of cases.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Are you saying that Santorums Daughter, the fact that she lived and still does is Barbaric? Is that what you think of them?

No I think the fact that the Santorums took a huge huge huge risk with their daughters quality of life was utterly selfish and barbaric. Clearly it was all about what they wanted, little thought was given as to what the girls life might (and most likely could) have been.

Or put it another way, would you make a bet where the odds are 99 in a 100 that your daughter will lead a short life willed with suffering and pain? I sincerely hope not.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I think any parent who aborts their child is barbaric.

That is I suspected because you have messed up priorities. It is not about lives of the children for you, it is about adhering to the parents religious doctrine. So long as the parents are happy who cares if the child's life is full of misery and suffering.

Festus · 24-03-2012 10:53pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I have developed a brain, a nervous system, a sensory system and all the other wonderful features that allow me to think, feel and experience various things, among them pain.

An embryo has none of these things. It can no more think about pain than it can feel pain in the first place.

At what stage are you talking about? Bear in mind that once you were an embryo too. Perhaps you would have prefered to have been aborted before you developed sufficiently to feel pain.

The brain is detectable at three weeks. Again this is before the woman would normally know she might be pregnant.

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that you would keep a small collection of cells alive long enough for all these features to develop, for a person to come into being, just so you can watch it suffer and die is disgusting.

As previously mention no more a collection of cells than you or I are. The embryo is a highly organised being that is growing and developing.

Zombrex wrote: »

Not when I was just an embryo. No brain. No nervous system. No ability to think or feel. No person. Just a bunch of cells.

Suggest you find a good medical library, because I really don't know if you are genuinely ignorant.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 10:54pm

Festus wrote: »

We all get to eternal life however we need to be baptised for Heaven to be an option. Children who die before being baptised are at the mercy of God.

And God who loves us all and doesn't want us to suffer is going to throw aborted babies into hell, is he?

Festus · 24-03-2012 11:05pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Yup. As you said yourself, the key point is "will" be handicapped. Not is handicapped. The person does not exist yet. No one, not even the most dye in the wool anti-abortion crusader really thinks of an embryo as an actual child.

At what point in a pregnancy does a woman begin to think "I'm having a baby!" ?

Zombrex wrote: »

Why in God's name (when in Rome) would you choose to bring into existence a sentient being who's only experience on Earth will be suffering for her short life and then death.

Because we do not have the right to kill another human being.

Zombrex wrote: »

I can't believe how selfish some people can be in this area. It is like the couple who know there is a very strong chance their children will have a hideous genetic disease but who have children anyway cause well they want children and sure isn't what the parent wants far more important than the suffering of the children they might have.

Chance? Probablility? There is always the chance that the child will be healthy.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or the woman on social welfare who can barely afford to pay for the 12 kids she already has, but sure why should that stop her from having a few more from different lads she meets at the back of the chipper. Sure the government will pay for the kids won't they, and she "loves" children.

If you think that is an issue why is abortion your first option and not a reform of the law and morals?

Zombrex wrote: »

While people may have a right to have kids I wish, wish wish wish more parents would stop and think for a minute and ask themselves is it the right thing to do to bring the kids they want into this world. Are they doing it for the kids, or are they doing it for themselves.

The latter unfortunately seems to be the answer in the majority of cases.

Well, the world needs kids. Where is the workforce that will pay the taxes to provide you with an old age pension going to come from? Or are you sufficiently independantly wealthy that you really don't care?

Zombrex wrote: »

No I think the fact that the Santorums took a huge huge huge risk with their daughters quality of life was utterly selfish and barbaric. Clearly it was all about what they wanted, little thought was given as to what the girls life might (and most likely could) have been.

Clearly you do not know Rick Santorum and you have a prejudiced interpretation of selfishness. In actuallity the Santorums are being entirely selfless.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or put it another way, would you make a bet where the odds are 99 in a 100 that your daughter will lead a short life willed with suffering and pain? I sincerely hope not.

That is I suspected because you have messed up priorities. It is not about lives of the children for you, it is about adhering to the parents religious doctrine. So long as the parents are happy who cares if the child's life is full of misery and suffering.

Do you really think parents with perfectly healthy children have idyllic lives?

Besides, in general biological terms is it not our priority to reproduce?

Festus · 24-03-2012 11:06pm

Zombrex wrote: »

And God who loves us all and doesn't want us to suffer is going to throw aborted babies into hell, is he?

I believe I provided an answer to that already.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 11:12pm

Festus wrote: »

At what stage are you talking about?

The embryo stage is normally classified from 1 to 8 weeks.

Festus wrote: »

Bear in mind that once you were an embryo too. Perhaps you would have prefered to have been aborted before you developed sufficiently to feel pain.

I would not have cared one bit, because I would not have existed. If my parents had never had sex I wouldn't have existed either, and thus would not have been around to care about not existing.

The ironic thing is from a Christian point of view is that my parents conceived me out of wed lock. By the standards of your own religion what they were doing was sinful and wrong and should not have done it.

Your own religion says I shouldn't exist. Who am I to argue with that

Festus wrote: »

The brain is detectable at three weeks.

No, the cells that will make up the brain are detectable at three weeks, as are the cells what will eventually make up everything else. The brain does not reach proper functionality till about week 26 when it goes through a stage of rapid neuron development.

I would out law all abortions after about the 24th week, since that is essentially the start of the creation of the "person" the person will be. Up until that point it is merely a developing body the person will eventually occupy.

Festus wrote: »

As previously mention no more a collection of cells than you or I are.

I have a brain. I'm assuming you do to (insert appropriate joke here).

Festus wrote: »

Suggest you find a good medical library, because I really don't know if you are genuinely ignorant.

I suggest you stop reading nonsense from anti-abortion sites.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 11:14pm

Festus wrote: »

I believe I provided an answer to that already.

So you agree, free pass to heaven?

Wh1stler · 24-03-2012 11:18pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So it boils down to what people think about other People. I think my child will probably be handicapped.. I kill it. This is the whole problem with abortion. We take away the dignity of the person and make decisions based on what we think is their value..

Are you saying that Santorums Daughter, the fact that she lived and still does is Barbaric? Is that what you think of them?

I think any parent who aborts their child is barbaric. This is a big difference of a Doctor saying the Child might die to the Child actually dying to killing the child.

I have many friends who are people and most of those I love are people. I don't like to see people suffer. Or animals for that matter.

I think it is ironic how you people are willing to break out the placards over abortion but don't bat an eyelid when bombs are being dropped on actual living babies in Baghdad by Christian airforces.

Which is more barbaric; aborting a pregnancy to avoid a child's suffering or dropping missiles onto a hospital.

If there is a God then aborted babies have a wonderful future. You should be more concerned with the living.

Festus · 24-03-2012 11:19pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I would out law all abortions after about the 24th week, since that is essentially the start of the creation of the "person" the person will be. Up until that point it is merely a developing body the person will eventually occupy.

So you agree that it is a human being then and only developmentally different from the developing body a child will occupy on their way to becoming an adult person.

Zombrex wrote: »

I suggest you stop reading nonsense from anti-abortion sites.

I have no need of anti-abortion websites. Medical facts are suffcient.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 11:26pm

Festus wrote: »

At what point in a pregnancy does a woman begin to think "I'm having a baby!" ?

In my experience about 6 months before conception. Perhaps that is when we should say a person is created :rolleyes:

Festus wrote: »

Because we do not have the right to kill another human being.

I must remember that the next time I masturbate. Oh right, that's different ...

Festus wrote: »

Chance? Probablility? There is always the chance that the child will be healthy.

Yes, in the case of Edwards disease it is 1 in 100. Any parent who picks those odds is either incredible selfish or needs to brush up on their secondary school maths (in the case of Rich Santorium I'm guessing that is both)

Festus wrote: »

If you think that is an issue why is abortion your first option and not a reform of the law and morals?

You want to make it illegal to have unprotected sex? Good luck with that one.

Festus wrote: »

Well, the world needs kids. Where is the workforce that will pay the taxes to provide you with an old age pension going to come from?

So screw the experience these kids will have growing up poor without proper food, living in a cramped tiny corporation house with 15 of them. Keep these kids coming, its all ok cause they are going to pay for your pension.

Charming.

Festus wrote: »

Clearly you do not know Rick Santorum and you have a prejudiced interpretation of selfishness. In actuallity the Santorums are being entirely selfless.

Lol. Yup they selfless rolled the dice and selflessly gave their young daughter the changes to die horribly from a genetic disease. What stellar parents.

Who knows, maybe she will live just long enough to contribute to social security.

Festus wrote: »

Do you really think parents with perfectly healthy children have idyllic lives?

I don't give a crap about the parents I'm talking about the children.

Man what part of that are you not getting. Children do not exist to give to their parents. It is the other way around.

Zombrex · 24-03-2012 11:30pm

Festus wrote: »

So you agree that it is a human being then and only developmentally different from the developing body a child will occupy on their way to becoming an adult person.

Yes. A person is their brain (specifically the higher functions of the brain) and the brain is the person. There is no other supported argument for personhood, certainly not conception which does nothing except join some DNA together.

Festus wrote: »

I have no need of anti-abortion websites. Medical facts are suffcient.

When you find any let me know.

Festus · 24-03-2012 11:46pm

Zombrex wrote: »

So you agree, free pass to heaven?

I didn't say that.

Festus · 24-03-2012 11:48pm

Zombrex wrote: »

When you find any let me know.

Already have. Citations presented.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes. A person is their brain (specifically the higher functions of the brain) and the brain is the person. There is no other supported argument for personhood, certainly not conception which does nothing except join some DNA together.

Citation please, or is this just your opinion.

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Comments