Doctors reject abortion motions

Pompey Magnus · 07-04-2013 11:14pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm referring to the catholic church being assh"les not Christians in general. I should have made the division clear.

The reason it wasn't clear is because in the example you gave it was clearly not the Catholic Church being an "asshole", it was one Christian.

Actually I do hold them responsible aswell but they weren't the ones preaching love thy neighbor and telling stories about a poor carpenter born in a stable.

You hold the State responsible for not providing adequately for your uncle, which should be a legal obligation yet you go further and "hate" the Church because one representative of it did not meeting what is only a moral obligation?

Grayson · 08-04-2013 6:35am

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Nobody knows how life is made. Scientists can observe what happens at a certain scale, but they cannot describe the precise mechanism nor can they explain why (anyway, it's not their job to answer the whys of life). There are a myriad of things that scientists cannot explain no matter how advanced those who inhabit the present think they are.

I can tell you for certain though that I didn't create myself. I can also tell you for certain that "Science" didn't create me.

yes people can. It's called science, not christian science or anything like that, just science. They can clone animals. They can create life in a lab. And you know what, you're right, there are things that we don't completly understand yet. But we're getting there and we will. And each step the church will have to change it's mind and say that what they previously taught is wrong but that this new truth is actually ok. Just like they did with evolution when they ditched genesis.

And no, science didn't create you. Your daddy did that when he and your mum got up to some naughty sfuff in the bedroom. The same way dogs, monkeys, birds, reptiles and billions of individual animals in tens of thousnads of other species did.

Weathering · 08-04-2013 6:37am

Hot bath and a bottle of brandy..nuff said

SB2013 · 08-04-2013 9:09am

Grayson wrote: »

I never said that. I said after week 20 it starts to become viable. Where did I say 8 months. Of course, you have an argument taht you can't win, so you'rte sticking words in my mouth.

If the baby is viable, then of course efforts should be made. But if it's not, there shouldn't. And eitherway, the mothers life is the most important and it should be her decision what happens, not a doctors religious belief.

You didn't say eight months. You said one week before birth. You actually avoided the whole question by stating some random pointless stuff. The fact is, to determine when life begins you must determine what life is. You can look at it from a religious, spiritual or philosophical point of view but not a scientific one. Once you decide what life is then science can tell you when exactly that happens in development.

And while you might think its ok to value a mothers life above that of her child, many will disagree and as long as you fail to see that you will only go around in circles when discussing this issue

otto_26 · 08-04-2013 9:02pm

Turtyturd wrote: »

Well a month old baby can survive independently from the mother, it may not do so for long but it can survive....but why should it be replaced as nobody is talking about murdering month old babies, the discussion is about aborting foetus'.

I think the problem here is getting some people to understand that a Fetus is a baby..

Seachmall · 08-04-2013 9:03pm

otto_26 wrote: »

I think the problem here is getting some people to understand that a Fetus is a baby..

The idea that a fetus is a living human deserving of basic human rights is an opinion. Not a fact.

Wildlife Actor · 08-04-2013 9:08pm

Seachmall wrote: »

The idea that a fetus is a living human deserving of basic human rights is an opinion. Not a fact.

2 things there: 1 human, 2 deserving.

So do you say it is a human but not deserving, or not a human, in which case, why mention deserving?

otto_26 · 08-04-2013 9:09pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I find it absolutely amazing that the catholic church feel so strongly about protecting unborn children but over the past few decades have been unrepentant about the suffering they have caused to countless children in the world.

My mam's brother died at the age of two and the family was so poor he was buried in a pauper's grave. I have never met my uncle obviously and the only trace I have of him is a lock of blond hair my mam keeps in a locket she wears but his story makes me hat the catholic church. My granny asked the local priest for help at the time in order to give her son a decent burial and was more or less told to get lost.

The catholic church can go feck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure they can go feck themselves!! While you sit down on your ass and watch programs on the BBC.. (You know the organisation that has in the past few decades been unrepentant about the suffering they have caused to countless children in the UK) but you don't care about that because that's your entertainment I'm talking about!

Because you see it's not the crimes that upsets people it's the organisations.

Nodin · 08-04-2013 9:10pm

otto_26 wrote: »

I'm sure they can go feck themselves!! While you sit down on your ass and watch programs on the BBC.. (You know the organisation that has in the past few decades been unrepentant about the suffering they have caused to countless children in the UK) but you don't care about that because that's your entertainment I'm talking about!

Because you see it's not the crimes that upsets people it's the organisations.

wtf?

otto_26 · 08-04-2013 9:12pm

Seachmall wrote: »

The idea that a fetus is a living human deserving of basic human rights is an opinion. Not a fact.

Yes I know :rolleyes:... because when it goes through the magical tunnel and see's magical white light and suddenly and only then magically becomes a human..

:rolleyes:

otto_26 · 08-04-2013 9:14pm

Nodin wrote: »

wtf?

It's called English... if you don't understand what was said do some research on the BBC and child abuse and it will become clear to you.. :rolleyes:

Seachmall · 08-04-2013 9:14pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

2 things there: 1 human, 2 deserving.

So do you say it is a human but not deserving, or not a human, in which case, why mention deserving?

I say whether it qualifies as a human, and whether or not it is deserving of basic human rights, is not an issue science concerns itself with and has no scientific consensus.

It's a political decision.

I say whoever asserts the child is in fact a human from conception deserving of basic human rights has the burden of proof and should be presenting evidence for their claims instead of engaging in screaming matches.

Nobody is going to take your claim seriously if you're unwilling or unable to prove it. Nor should they.

Wildlife Actor · 08-04-2013 9:18pm

Seachmall wrote: »

I say whether it qualifies as a human, and whether or not it is deserving of basic human rights, is not an issue science concerns itself with and has no scientific consensus.

It's a political decision.

I say whoever asserts the child is in fact a human from conception deserving of basic human rights has the burden of proof and should be presenting evidence for their claims instead of engaging in screaming matches.

Nobody is going to take your claim seriously if you're unwilling or unable to prove it. Nor should they.

That's a perfectly logical approach, but - having set up the political question - on what criteria do we answer it?

Seachmall · 08-04-2013 9:30pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

That's a perfectly logical approach, but - having set up the political question - on what criteria do we answer it?

Given that neither side will concede their position on whether or not the fetus is a living human deserving of human rights the only way to solve the issue is with a vote.

However if we accept that the fetus' classification is unknown I'd suggest assuming it to be a living human is without basis.

The only reason I could see for it would be to "err on the side of caution". But even that is illogical. If you take the situation where it's either the mother or the fetus it's absurd to risk the known life for the unknown one. "Erring on the side of caution" in this instance would unavoidably be erring on the side of the mother.

Wildlife Actor · 08-04-2013 9:33pm

Seachmall wrote: »

Given that neither side will concede their position on whether or not the fetus is a living human deserving of human rights the only way to solve the issue is with a vote.

However if we accept that the fetus' classification is unknown I'd suggest assuming it to be a living human is without basis.

The only reason I could see for it would be to "err on the side of caution". But even that is illogical. If you take the situation where it's either the mother or the fetus it's absurd to risk the known life for the unknown one. "Erring on the side of caution" in this instance would unavoidably be erring on the side of the mother.

OK, at the risk of drawing down the wrath of the catholics, I'll grant you that calling a sperm and egg combo a human is silly. But surely calling the foetus at the beginning of labour a non-human is equally silly, right?

Seachmall · 08-04-2013 9:38pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

OK, at the risk of drawing down the wrath of the catholics, I'll grant you that calling a sperm and egg combo a human is silly. But surely calling the foetus at the beginning of labour a non-human is equally silly, right?

In my opinion, sure. I think whether it's inside or outside the womb is a fairly arbitrary way to classify it.

I know a guy who's wife gave birth at the 25th or 26th week mark. That's not even into the third trimester. I think even at that point it would be absurd to decide this birthed child is in-fact not a human and could be thrown in the bin.

I would've been part of the "no right to life until viability" group until that happened. But I find it hard to believe a week or two difference would've determined the child's right to be treated as a child.

(The baby is about 7 months old now and he seems to be doing fine in case you're curious.)

Wildlife Actor · 08-04-2013 9:49pm

Seachmall wrote: »

In my opinion, sure. I think whether it's inside or outside the womb is a fairly arbitrary way to classify it.

I know a guy who's wife gave birth at the 25th or 26th week mark. That's not even into the third trimester. I think even at that point it would be absurd to decide this birthed child is in-fact not a human and could be thrown in the bin.

I would've been part of the "no right to life until viability" group until that happened. But I find it hard to believe a week or two difference would've determined the child's right to be treated as a child.

(The baby is about 7 months old now and he seems to be doing fine in case you're curious.)

Likewise, I'm by no means sure of the answer, and agree that it's a political decision, but if we have to pick a point, shouldn't we (i.e. everybody who votes on the question) strive to answer that question for themselves, the question being "when do I think it is human?"

Once society makes that decision, then we can decide the next question: when is it deserving of the right to make a go of it towards birth?

Personally, I would think those two "whens" coincide.

There is then the third and separate question: when it acquires that right (i.e. to make a go of it), what degree of necessity trumps that right?

Fair?

Seachmall · 08-04-2013 9:58pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

Likewise, I'm by no means sure of the answer, and agree that it's a political decision, but if we have to pick a point, shouldn't we (i.e. everybody who votes on the question) strive to answer that question for themselves, the question being "when do I think it is human?"

Once society makes that decision, then we can decide the next question: when is it deserving of the right to make a go of it towards birth?

Personally, I would think those two "whens" coincide.

There is then the third and separate question: when it acquires that right (i.e. to make a go of it), what degree of necessity trumps that right?

Fair?

It's fair.

I haven't answered the first or second questions for myself though, predominantly because I can't see any objective means by which to do so (and I think it demands an objective answer).

The third is subjective as far as I can see it and so my answer is that due to having no answers to the first two the mother's life must absolutely take priority.

Sarky · 08-04-2013 10:07pm

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

If you're out of your depth; I understand.

I hope ye all go to bed tonight thinking at a level beyond that which ye've become accustomed to.

Yes, well done on that front. Completely new viewpoint for me. I've never before experienced such... mediocrity.

opinion guy · 08-04-2013 10:17pm

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

If you're out of your depth; I understand.

I hope ye all go to bed tonight thinking at a level beyond that which ye've become accustomed to.

Phil ???? Jakkass ????? Is that you ????

Paddy Cow · 08-04-2013 10:19pm

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has come up already but in the case of rape, what would be the criteria to get an abortion? How would the woman prove she had been raped? Would she have to name her attacker and go through a trial, even if she didn't want to? Only a small percentage of rape cases end in a conviction and most cases takes months and months to get a verdict, by which time it would be too late for an abortion. If the man was found not guilty, would this mean that not only did the woman go through the trauma of a trial but now she has to share custody of a man who raped her but was found legally innocent (and yes that does happen, just like men are found guilty by skanks who cry rape).

I am pro choice btw and would never expect a woman to go through a pregnancy if she didn't want to but I don't think it's as black and white as saying "abortion should be allowed in the case of rape". Abortion should be allowed but with the woman getting enough counselling beforehand that she is making an informed decision. The whole "abortion on demand" is scaremongering. It is easier to use contraception than have an abortion but contraception isn't 100% effective. My heart goes out to any woman or couple who are faced with having to make the decision on whether or not to go ahead with a pregnancy and I wouldn't judge them for their choice. They're the ones who will have to live with that choice forever.

Wildlife Actor · 08-04-2013 11:02pm

Seachmall wrote: »

It's fair.

I haven't answered the first or second questions for myself though, predominantly because I can't see any objective means by which to do so (and I think it demands an objective answer).

The third is subjective as far as I can see it and so my answer is that due to having no answers to the first two the mother's life must absolutely take priority.

But that's a cop out: not making a choice is a choice. It's one thing if you don't care (and I'm firmly of the belief that everybody is entitled not to care, and not to vote). But if you do care enough to, say, vote on it, you must make an effort. Saying that there is no objective answer is - at best - a justification for not voting.

And it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say that a mother's life must take priority. I agree. But maintaining that position - which relates to a specific (and many (Doctors at any rate) say, narrow) circumstance where one of two lives must be lost - has no bearing on the other question: when is the foetus (a) a human and (b) deserving of a right to get to birth. The conflation of these questions is a key factor in the non-conversation the country is having on this.

Seachmall · 08-04-2013 11:26pm

Love nor Money wrote: »

But that's a cop out: not making a choice is a choice. It's one thing if you don't care (and I'm firmly of the belief that everybody is entitled not to care, and not to vote). But if you do care enough to, say, vote on it, you must make an effort. Saying that there is no objective answer is - at best - a justification for not voting.

It's not a cop out. If the assertion that it is a life at point X (and all the rest) cannot be proven you are within reason to dismiss it as false.

And it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say that a mother's life must take priority. I agree. But maintaining that position - which relates to a specific (and many (Doctors at any rate) say, narrow) circumstance where one of two lives must be lost - has no bearing on the other question: when is the foetus (a) a human and (b) deserving of a right to get to birth. The conflation of these questions is a key factor in the non-conversation the country is having on this.

I can't answer (A) but I'll give my opinion on (B).

I reject the notion that the right to life is an absolute right. I think it's clear that it's not. We justify ending an attackers life to save our own and some of us justify ending someone's life as punishment or as a preventative measure.

Therefore the right to life, and any other right, is conditional. It is given by society and is revoked by society.

What conditions we set can be completely arbitrary. There's no absolute moral guideline by which to measure them. We can pick and choose. Sometimes (most times hopefully) we have reasons. Allowing killing of other "accepted" humans with a right to life would leave the potential for the destruction of society so we rightly outlaw it. There's no such risk with abortion. Even if you assume the moment of conception is the moment it is human ascribing that human a right to life is entirely and solely a personal preference.

I disagree with telling a woman she will have to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy because I have a bias towards the fetus. It affects me in no way. I see it similar to shaving a mans head completely because I'm opposed to comb-overs. It's none of my business. My own subjective opinions should not dictate someone else's life.

And in a hilariously ironic move I'll take this opinion to the ballot box.

Wildlife Actor · 08-04-2013 11:49pm

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not a cop out. If the assertion that it is a life at point X (and all the rest) cannot be proven you are within reason to dismiss it as false.

To say you can't prove it's life is like saying you can't prove it's not life. You've already accepted that distinguishing between one end and the other of the birth canal is silly, and given an example of viability much earlier. To say that it's "not proven" is inconsistent with that.

Seachmall wrote: »

I can't answer (A) but I'll give my opinion on (B).

I reject the notion that the right to life is an absolute right. I think it's clear that it's not. We justify ending an attackers life to save our own and some of us justify ending someone's life as punishment or as a preventative measure.

Therefore the right to life, and any other right, is conditional. It is given by society and is revoked by society.

What conditions we set can be completely arbitrary. There's no absolute moral guideline by which to measure them. We can pick and choose. Sometimes (most times hopefully) we have reasons. Allowing killing of other "accepted" humans with a right to life would leave the potential for the destruction of society so we rightly outlaw it. There's no such risk with abortion. Even if you assume the moment of conception is the moment it is human ascribing that human a right to life is entirely and solely a personal preference.

I disagree with telling a woman she will have to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy because I have a bias towards the fetus. It affects me in no way. I see it similar to shaving a mans head completely because I'm opposed to comb-overs. It's none of my business. My own subjective opinions should not dictate someone else's life.

And in a hilariously ironic move I'll take this opinion to the ballot box.

But would you not tell a woman that she had to endure the loss of her liberty for a lot longer than 9 months if she destroyed a child 5 minutes after birth?

With this question, I'm off to bed> What is wrong with saying, you are not required to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy if you make a decision at an early stage before the foetus has developed significantly, but if you allow the foetus to develop to such an extent that it reaches a certain point of humanity (yes, voted on, arbitrary, subjective, all the rest), then its right to make a go of it trumps, not your life, but your choice?

Seachmall · 09-04-2013 12:43am

Love nor Money wrote: »

To say you can't prove it's life is like saying you can't prove it's not life.

You don't need to prove it is not life, the burden of proof rests upon the person making the positive assertion.

If there's a vote tomorrow on whether or not to officially recognise the existence of aliens I'd vote no. It's a claim without sufficient evidence and while it's possible I'm well within reason to reject it.

You've already accepted that distinguishing between one end and the other of the birth canal is silly, and given an example of viability much earlier. To say that it's "not proven" is inconsistent with that.

That's a point I've picked and "point X", for me, would be somewhere between there and conception. But there's no definitive point. And from what we can prove (which is very little) they're all as arbitrary as each other.

But would you not tell a woman that she had to endure the loss of her liberty for a lot longer than 9 months if she destroyed a child 5 minutes after birth?

Sure. She has alternative options after those 9 months. She doesn't have to have any responsibility for the child if she doesn't want to.

It also introduces the question about self-awareness. Many argue that it's fine to abort until the point of potential self-awareness or consciousness.

We occasionally deem it fit to end the life of the brain-dead. They could go on living with machines attached but we decide it's morally acceptable to "let them die" (we are refusing to sustain their life any further despite it being entirely feasible, much like abortion).

With this question, I'm off to bed> What is wrong with saying, you are not required to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy if you make a decision at an early stage before the foetus has developed significantly, but if you allow the foetus to develop to such an extent that it reaches a certain point of humanity (yes, voted on, arbitrary, subjective, all the rest), then its right to make a go of it trumps, not your life, but your choice?

If I'm reading it right you're asking why the mother should not have the choice to abort (for arbitrary reasons) because she either changed her mind or didn't decide quick enough and past the point where abortion becomes wrong?

I don't have an answer for that. Even if we accept it is 100% a human life with a human right to life maybe we should still give her the right to end it. Honestly, I'd probably be in favour of giving her that choice.

Here's a pretty well known short essay that addresses that issue (and argues in favour of allowing abortions). It's definitely worth a read if you haven't seen it already,

A Defense of Abortion

Pushtrak · 09-04-2013 3:03am

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I see. So now every hard luck story since the foundation of the State is the evil Catholic Church's fault?

What precisely is your issue here? That perhaps the church hasn't always had issues? It's only recently? Would it help if I showed something from a Bishop of 1942? It's certainly informative politically...

http://books.google.ie/books?id=-xu8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Dr+Cornelius+Lucey+Salazar&source=bl&ots=V88XBvU1HO&sig=ntlK4iiO9NdgydWiE-0a0FyAyMo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_oNjUba0FqKL7AbjuICYBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Cornelius%20Lucey%20Salazar&f=false

Salazar is frankly a dictator. But he is a dictator with a difference. His regime is authoritarian not totalitarian; his outlook is Christian, not materialistic or Pagan... he acknowledges that the government (of which he is the embodiment) is as subject to the moral law in its conduc of affairs as the individual in his private life... He is a perfect dictator if there ever was one.

Nodin · 09-04-2013 3:29am

opinion guy wrote: »

Phil ???? Jakkass ????? Is that you ????

He'd never say "ye".

Doctors reject abortion motions

Comments