Doctors reject abortion motions

Crasp wrote: »

If I may, have you ever actually studied the modern scientific explanations behind conception? Or simply denounced them?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you:

My position is grounded in Catholic teaching. You could be making up your position as you go along for all I know/care. I doubt you have put as much time, thought and effort into the moral issue surrounding abortion as the church have. Will your non-authoritative opinions on women's and babies' health be around after you die? I doubt it. I know this is a "democracy" where everyone is trained to have 'an opinion' from a very young age, but unluckily for you, someone forgot to teach you that some opinions are more useful than others.

never mind :rolleyes:

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you:

My position is grounded in Catholic teaching. You could be making up your position as you go along for all I know/care. I doubt you have put as much time, thought and effort into the moral issue surrounding abortion as the church have. Will your non-authoritative opinions on women's and babies' health be around after you die? I doubt it. I know this is a "democracy" where everyone is trained to have 'an opinion' from a very young age, but unluckily for you, someone forgot to teach you that some opinions are more useful than others.

This post is so absurd I can't even fathom how I should respond to it.


Instead I'll tell a joke.


Why did the calf cross the road?

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?

Actually you are purposely missing the point. My granny's poverty isn't the issue, it's the treatment of my granny by a an who dedicated his life to being a "christian". Thats my point. The catholic church bang on about values like love thy neighbor, yet some Christians seem to hate gay people, they go on about helping the poor yet they run some of the most elite fee paying schools in the country and they talk about charity yet didn't even help my would be uncle wiith either food or a proper burial.

My point is that Christians don't practice what they preach.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Do you think that among the entire Catholic population every single one, either lay or priest,
would have refused blankly to help, or is it possible your hate could be based on the actions of one bad egg?

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

One bad egg in the catholic church? Ever heard of the Ryan report?

Do you equally hate the Irish State also for failing in it's responsibility to your uncle?
No

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.)

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.