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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion debate thread

1…3940424445…59

Comments

  • #1232
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Why do you get to decide that women can't chose abortion, ever?


  • #1233
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why do you get to decide that women can't chose abortion, ever?

    We're talking about extinguishing a human life. Nobody should be allowed to choose that, ever.


  • #1234
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    We're talking about extinguishing a human life. Nobody should be allowed to choose that, ever.

    Why? What if the pregnancy will extinguish the life of a woman?
    I'm still confused about why a non sentient zygote or foetus trumps the wishes and life of a living, breathing woman without exception.


  • #1235
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why? What if the pregnancy will extinguish the life of a woman?
    I'm still confused about why a non sentient zygote or foetus trumps the wishes and life of a living, breathing woman without exception.

    Personally I think there is a case for abortion if the life of the mother is in danger, those types of decisions are tough but unfortunately need to be made in life for the greater good and are not unique to abortion, Siamese twins is an example, sometimes one just has to die. But those cases are the exception, most abortions are a matter of convenience.
    You keep saying zygote, and foetus in an attempt to minimalize the fact that we are talking about a human. Feoutus is stage of human development.Babies have been born and survived at 23 weeks, were they still non sentient foetus's then?

    Here's one at 21 weeks
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html

    Those kids could still have been killed up to 24 weeks


  • #1236
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I'm using medical terms like zygote because they are correct, and because I don't follow the prolife mantra of emotive argument like the use of baby and unborn. I've a foetus in my uterus right now, is that the wrong thing to say? Should I talk in terms of my unborn child?


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    lazygal wrote: »
    I'm using medical terms like zygote because they are correct, and because I don't follow the prolife mantra of emotive argument like the use of baby and unborn. I've a foetus in my uterus right now, is that the wrong thing to say? Should I talk in terms of my unborn child?

    Fine, so when a "Foetus" is born @ 21 weeks. Does is become a baby then, or does it still have to wait until the full term to be called a human, or a baby?

    And would it still be okay to kill it as long as I did if before 24 weeks?


  • #1238
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why? What if the pregnancy will extinguish the life of a woman?
    I'm still confused about why a non sentient zygote or foetus trumps the wishes and life of a living, breathing woman without exception.

    If a pregnancy will for whatever reason kill the would be mother (Notice that suicide is self murder, so that would not be the pregnancy killing the mother), then you would choose to save the mothers life, and if this unfortunately means the end of the life for the unborn, thats just a sad consequence. Abortion as simply a choice, is choosing death. Nothing just. No honourable intention with a regrettable end. Its just a will to extinguish a life, for nothing more than a desire to extinguish the life (Be that life an inconvenience or whatever). Thats very much a HUGE difference.


  • #1239
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,172 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    At 23 weeks, the chance of survival is about 17%. Source

    At 21 weeks, I doubt it would be much higher than 1-3%, and that's even in a developed country like in the USA or in Europe. This "miracle baby" was lucky in that it managed to survive birth, but its low birth rate may lead to physical and mental disabilities.


  • #1240
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    We're talking about extinguishing a human life. Nobody should be allowed to choose that, ever.

    People keep saying that but so far none of the posters here, including yourself as far as I can see, seem to actually believe that.

    Not as a general principle at least. You only believe it in relation to forcing the woman to use her body to sustain the baby. You don't believe it in relation to anything else, certainly not anything that would force you to use your body to sustain others. Life is extinguished due to your inaction all the time, but you don't blink.

    So why take the anti-abortion side's arguments seriously when you don't even believe them? This isn't about requiring people to use their bodies to sustain others. This is about people not liking women having sex for pleasure and then thinking they don't have to have babies as punishment.

    The old adage that if men got pregnant we would have had abortion 3,000 years ago springs to mind.


  • #1241
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    There is not one human rights issue that doesn't lay it's foundation on being a 'human' - a zygote is a human zygote, any scientist will know a 'human' zygote, or embryo or foetus, the same way as they will diagnose that you are probably six weeks old, or nine months or two years - or indeed folk who go to get a 3d scan these days post the pics of their 'baby' all over facebook etc. or whether a person is 85 with parkinsons or dementia or any other number of illness that we treat the patient because they are 'human' and not disposable...simply because another 'human' grew up and decided as such.

    I know that this probably doesn't even register in an atheists ears - but there are some who believe that your belief is redundant, and a dead end, it reduces, and reduces so far that it doesn't even see the value of their own life - and indeed choices - nevertheless, this is the Christian forum, and 'this' is the most rational view I can in all conscience see is true. Not yours.

    There might be some who believe that lmaopml, but you aren't one of them. Neither is anyone on this forum.

    All human begins were at some point a sperm and egg cell. I won't say "started" as a sperm and egg because again life does not start any more.

    Saying you are once a zygote as if that is supposed to mean something, while ignoring that 3 second before that "you" were also a sperm and egg cell about to meet, just shows that you don't even believe that argument.

    So just like the previous poster, we have arguments against abortion that the anti-abortion side doesn't actually believe.

    So why take this seriously? What is the real reason you are opposed to abortion? It isn't because you value the zygote. So why not just be honest about it?


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    lazygal wrote: »
    I'm using medical terms like zygote because they are correct, and because I don't follow the prolife mantra of emotive argument like the use of baby and unborn. I've a foetus in my uterus right now, is that the wrong thing to say? Should I talk in terms of my unborn child?

    Do you cease being 'correct' after birth? Once he or she is in your arms will you tell your friends the neonate has been born as that is more 'correct' term after all. Don't think that people can't see the double standards.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    How old is the clone?

    If their life started at my conception (because life "starts" at conception, right?) that means that they are 33 years old, even though they would have the body and mind of a baby.

    See, doesn't make much sense. You could say their life starts at the moment you choose the cell to clone, but since there is no conception that also invalidates the point. It is all arbitrary. I'm alive, the clone is alive, the clone's clone is alive. The whole process nothing starts, just changes.

    As soon as you start seriously examining it the idea that life "starts" at conception turns out to be ridiculous (e.g what about all the life forms that reproduce asexually, do they not start?).

    Life, in the biological sense, started 4 billion years ago and hasn't stopped since. It is a continuous chemical process, every part of you, your parents, your grand parents, your great grand parents, your great great grand parents ... were alive, nothing began to be alive, any more than life would "begin" if I cloned a cell of mine.

    Any point where you pick for when biological life starts is arbitrary, since you are assigning a starting point to an on going and never stopping chemical process (ie something that doesn't have starting points other than the very original starting point billions of years ago).

    Life is indeed like river but an arbitrary understanding of what is a human entity is no way to grant and ensure universal human rights. You might see it as more logically but the results are self evidently not moral or just.

    Morbert wrote: »
    The pro-life side maintains that a zygote is not just genetic material, but is a person. Yet twins emerge when the genetic material in the womb gets pulled apart and separated. This would imply a person can comprised of multiple persons. This is clearly an absurdity. The genetic material is not a person. Instead, it is spun and folded into individuals, just as my DNA can be placed in an egg, developed into a new individual.

    Before the split there is one human, after the split there is two. Its illogical to say that there is 2 in 1 because before the split there is only 1. Your argument is the real absurdity as it is based on an unreal scenario. Human cloning reveals this as although although a new human being is created there is not 2 in 1. Whether we chose to call it a person or just a human is your own business but I don't believe personhood is a reasonable or suitable vehicle to grant rights legally or morally so for me personhood per see is not relevant here.


  • #1243
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    lmaopml wrote: »
    There is something inherently irrational about people that see themselves as rational by placing a 'value' system on some individuals above others.
    Hmmm, doesn't everyone do that? I presume that is one of the reasons why we don't have compulsory blood and organ donations. This is, by the way, a question that has been asked several time on this thread and has yet to be answered. Why does, or should, a foetus, uniquely, have a set of rights that supersede the right of another person? Can you please answer that?
    lmaopml wrote: »
    The mere fact that a child passes down the birth canal or is stopped from doing so - even in the third trimester if the legs don't leave the womb, that a 'law' could be passed on their 'value' is daft.
    How is it daft? There needs to be a law, one way or the other. We can't have no law in relation to something controversial, there needs to be guidance. It would be daft to not have a law relating to this. When you don't have a law you end up with confusion and people not knowing what they can, can't or should do. Have you forgotten the case that kicked this while thing off again already?
    lmaopml wrote: »
    A born child is more dependent than a born cat - yet we wouldn't dream of cutting the cerebral cortex of a born child, just one who still has their legs in the womb because the law says they don't 'exist' with rights, yet we see them, or at least we hear about them because we don't like the idea of looking at our irrationality too close.
    Not quite sure what you are talking about here. I presume it is some late term abortion crap from an anti-choice website. For what its worth I am personally against abortions in general, in the sense that I would prefer that they were not necessary, but I am enough of a realist to realise that they are necessary in some cases and they are something that a woman should have the option of choosing. I am very uncomfortable with late term abortions, anything after 23 or 24 weeks, and personally think they should only be available in the most extreme of circumstances and should be highly controlled. But no matter how much I don't like them, I can still see that there may be circumstances where they are required which is why, irrespective of what I personally believe, I think they might still need to be an option.
    lmaopml wrote: »
    I don't understand the 'reason' behind undermining the value of human life in all it's stages - and there is no convincing rational that exists that makes it plausible to place a 'value' system - because human rights are actually 'built' the ones that adults cock up so badly - on the idea that human life is, that 'we' do possess a right to life, not a right to power over another or weaker one. There is an equality - or else there is no equality, and 'equality' is merely some romantic idea that has been twisted so badly that it's meaningless and without foundation.
    You misunderstand. It is you that is undermining the value of human life. Irrespective of what you believe, it is perfectly reasonable and indeed rational to place different values on different lives at different times. We, as a society, do it all the time. Doctors and medical administrators do it all the time. Two people on the transplant list one organ available. One patient is 80 with no living relative and the other is a 30 year old woman with 3 kids. Who gets the liver? Siamese twins, is your preference that they both die? Ectopic pregnancy, is you preference that the mother and foetus dies? What about eclampsia where the foetus is not viable? Do you again prefer both to die. So, unless you are going to be a hypocrite here I have to assume you would let both liver patients die and I expect you will also be lobbying to stop all transplant surgery as it requires making a value decision on one person over another? I have to further assume that in the two cases of potentially maternally fatal pregnancies your preference is to let both the mother and foetus die. Yes? If you could just answer those questions for me we can then move onto who, between the two of us, is irrational.

    MrP


  • #1244
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robp wrote: »
    Life is indeed like river but an arbitrary understanding of what is a human entity is no way to grant and ensure universal human rights.

    Yes, that is exactly the point. Saying that something now has rights because it has a particular DNA combination is stupid. Saying something has rights because it was 2 cells but now is 1 cell is stupid. Saying something has rights because it was inside something and not it is outside is stupid.

    Most of the notions given so far on this thread why something has or hasn't got rights are entirely arbitrary and pretty silly, particularly the idea that something has rights because a conception happened. What does conception have to do with rights?

    And since you mentioned it, saying something has rights simply because it is human is stupid. If tomorrow sentient intelligent alien life turned up on this planet would we say they have no rights because they aren't "human". What about all the animals we are discovering have higher functioning brains and possess rudimentary levels of awareness and thought? None of these creatures have rights because they don't have human DNA? What does human DNA have to do with whether you can appreciate existence or fear suffering?

    It is entirely arbitrary and rather ridiculous to take a point like conception and say "This is where everything begins, all rights come from this point"

    Not only is there no reason to pick that point, it also demonstrates that the person making that statement has no idea themselves why they think human life if valuable, what is it about us that makes us valuable

    Hint, it isn't our DNA.
    robp wrote: »
    Before the split there is one human, after the split there is two.

    So identical twins Mary Kate and Ashley are born.

    Which "person" (Mary Kate, or Ashley) was the zygote? Was it Mary Kate, or was it Ashley, or was it both?

    Now say there is a split (so one "person" becomes two "persons") but then later the cells recombine. One person to two people to one person. What happens to the second "person". Is that them dying? Did the surviving "person" kill them?

    Calling these things "persons" is utter nonsense.


  • #1245
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    We're talking about extinguishing a human life. Nobody should be allowed to choose that, ever.
    Really? Never ever? Really?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    If a pregnancy will for whatever reason kill the would be mother (Notice that suicide is self murder, so that would not be the pregnancy killing the mother), then you would choose to save the mothers life, and if this unfortunately means the end of the life for the unborn, thats just a sad consequence.
    A couple of points. When the reason for the suicide is the pregnancy, perhaps because she is pregnant by a rapist, so the suicidal feeling are as a direct result of the pregnancy, then it is perfectly reasonable to say the risk to life of the pregnant woman is from the pregnancy. It does not matter that the riskor and the riskee are the same person.

    The second point is, let's not beat around the bush here. When we are talking about the treatment to save the mother life we are frequently talking about an abortion. Let's not get confused here between what actually happens and what is said for the purposes of avoiding legal liability or upsetting the church. An abortion is an abortion whether it is at the choice of the woman or if it is part of a treatment neccesary to save her life.
    robp wrote: »
    Abortion as simply a choice, is choosing death. Nothing just. No honourable intention with a regrettable end. Its just a will to extinguish a life, for nothing more than a desire to extinguish the life (Be that life an inconvenience or whatever). Thats very much a HUGE difference.
    As far as you are concerned that is all it is, but it might very well be more than that for the person concerned. You point of view, which is unlikely to change, is there there is no valid reason for choosing an abortion. The problem is, there are many valid reasons, you just don't like them.
    robp wrote: »
    Do you cease being 'correct' after birth? Once he or she is in your arms will you tell your friends the neonate has been born as that is more 'correct' term after all. Don't think that people can't see the double standards.
    Seriously, what is the big deal with wanting to use the correct term in a discussion?
    robp wrote: »
    Before the split there is one human, after the split there is two. Its illogical to say that there is 2 in 1 because before the split there is only 1. Your argument is the real absurdity as it is based on an unreal scenario. Human cloning reveals this as although although a new human being is created there is not 2 in 1. Whether we chose to call it a person or just a human is your own business but I don't believe personhood is a reasonable or suitable vehicle to grant rights legally or morally so for me personhood per see is not relevant here.
    Where does the second identical twin get its soul from? Does the original soul split in two or does it get a new one? And with clones, how does ensoulment work? What does the bible say about souls in clones?

    MrP


  • #1246
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Why does, or should, a foetus, uniquely, have a set of rights that supersede the right of another person? Can you please answer that?

    lmaopml's post is ironic on a whole host of levels.

    She complains about putting one person's rights above another person's rights when in fact that is the whole basis of the anti-abortion argument.

    Normally everyone has right over their own body and no one else has a right over that body that supersedes that.

    The anti-abortion lobby saying this is fine in all cases except for the situation where there is a foetus involved.

    The for some completely unexplained reason the foetus gains more rights than anyone else. The foetus gains the right over the woman's body that supersedes the woman's own rights.

    And even more bizarrely as soon as the foetus is born and no longer inside the woman's body the foetus loses these rights

    So we have the notion that all humans have the same rights except if they are a foetus in which case you have more rights than anyone else.

    And they complain about us putting some as having more rights than others :rolleyes:

    The pro-choice argument is that all humans have the same rights. All of them. The foetus has the same rights as a baby who has the same rights as a toddler who has the same rights as a teenager who has the same rights as an adult.

    The foetus has the same rights as the mother who has the same rights as the foetus.


  • #1247
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    That is a meaningless statement. Moral obligations cannot be derived from evolution, and parents are not legally obliged to give up their bodies (E.g. donate a kidney) to save their child's life.

    No, they are not required to give up their bodies. But parents are expected to provide an appropriate level of care to their children. If parents neglect their child by locking her in a room for days on end without food then they are committing a crime. Not all parental involvement is voluntary. The refusal to donate organs to a terminally ill patient is not the same as actively killing a healthy individual.

    Mobert, lets say that your wife (assuming you have one) became pregnant. Congratulations! It's twins. Now lets say that she drank heavily throughout the first 24 weeks, and I'm talking gin by the pint load. Has she done anything wrong if one child is born with various alcohol related disorders?


  • #1248
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    lmaopml's post is ironic on a whole host of levels.

    She complains about putting one person's rights above another person's rights when in fact that is the whole basis of the anti-abortion argument.

    Normally everyone has right over their own body and no one else has a right over that body that supersedes that.

    Actually, that argument being advanced is that everyone has the right to life, the unborn included. This has been said several times now.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    The pro-choice argument is that all humans have the same rights. All of them. The foetus has the same rights as a baby who has the same rights as a toddler who has the same rights as a teenager who has the same rights as an adult.

    The foetus has the same rights as the mother who has the same rights as the foetus.

    Except when it comes to the right to continued existence.


  • #1249
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    MrPudding wrote: »

    Where does the second identical twin get its soul from? Does the original soul split in two or does it get a new one? And with clones, how does ensoulment work? What does the bible say about souls in clones?

    MrP

    It is regrettable that you attempt to deflect by talking about souls.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    So identical twins Mary Kate and Ashley are born.

    Which "person" (Mary Kate, or Ashley) was the zygote? Was it Mary Kate, or was it Ashley, or was it both?
    They split from one source. They came from one human.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Calling these things "persons" is utter nonsense.

    Well I clearly wrote personhood is not relevant here. Its about human life not persons. Personhood is too open to philosophical sophistry. In Spain chimpanzees are 'persons' legally. Chimpanzees are amazing animals deserving of ample respect and freedom from cruelty but they don't deserve equal rights imo.


  • #1250
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    I should add that I am sure if smart aliens were found somewhere in the universe they deserve and would get legal protection. Animals like chimps deserve more rights then cows or chickens but their cognition is so far below us they don't deserve equal rights to us. Of course intelligence plays a role in giving animals protection but it does not do this intra species. My legal rights are not contingent on my intelligence, self awareness or my ability to feel pain.


  • #1251
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    robp wrote: »
    It is regrettable that you attempt to deflect by talking about souls.


    Not an attempt to divert, genuine question.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Zombrex wrote: »
    lmaopml's post is ironic on a whole host of levels.

    She complains about putting one person's rights above another person's rights when in fact that is the whole basis of the anti-abortion argument.

    Normally everyone has right over their own body and no one else has a right over that body that supersedes that.

    The anti-abortion lobby saying this is fine in all cases except for the situation where there is a foetus involved.

    The for some completely unexplained reason the foetus gains more rights than anyone else. The foetus gains the right over the woman's body that supersedes the woman's own rights.

    And even more bizarrely as soon as the foetus is born and no longer inside the woman's body the foetus loses these rights

    So we have the notion that all humans have the same rights except if they are a foetus in which case you have more rights than anyone else.

    And they complain about us putting some as having more rights than others :rolleyes:

    The pro-choice argument is that all humans have the same rights. All of them. The foetus has the same rights as a baby who has the same rights as a toddler who has the same rights as a teenager who has the same rights as an adult.

    The foetus has the same rights as the mother who has the same rights as the foetus.

    Indeed.

    If ones life is in serious danger due to the actions of another human and in defending ones life that other human is killed that is deemed a non-crime.

    Self-defense is no offence - unless the 'human' one threatening ones life is a fetus...

    I doubt many here defending the right to life of the unborn would argue that in a situation where ones life is being seriously threatened by the already born one should allow them to kill you rather than 'take a human life'.


  • #1253
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    No, they are not required to give up their bodies. But parents are expected to provide an appropriate level of care to their children. If parents neglect their child by locking her in a room for days on end without food then they are committing a crime. Not all parental involvement is voluntary. The refusal to donate organs to a terminally ill patient is not the same as actively killing a healthy individual.

    Mobert, lets say that your wife (assuming you have one) became pregnant. Congratulations! It's twins. Now lets say that she drank heavily throughout the first 24 weeks, and I'm talking gin by the pint load. Has she done anything wrong if one child is born with various alcohol related disorders?

    Yes. The choice to go through with a pregnancy carries many responsibilities, just as the choice to raise a child carries many responsibilities. However, the body of the mother never becomes the property of the child. If the mother chooses not to go through with the pregnancy, we say that the choice should be respected.

    Now, to be fair, I can somewhat sympathise with the pro-life position (I, like many people am only pro-choice up to around the 20-22 week mark), but I cannot understand the pro-life position when it comes to cases of rape, where the victim is stripped of all choice in the matter.


  • #1254
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    robp wrote: »
    Well I clearly wrote personhood is not relevant here. Its about human life not persons. Personhood is too open to philosophical sophistry. In Spain chimpanzees are 'persons' legally. Chimpanzees are amazing animals deserving of ample respect and freedom from cruelty but they don't deserve equal rights imo.

    Personhood and individuality is all that is relevant. If you are going to arbitrarily imbue the right to life on a zygote, or an implanted zygote because the question of personhood is too difficult, then you might as well arbitrarily imbue the right to life on sperm and eggs. Conversely, if it turned out my friend had DNA made of skittles, it would not change his status as a person, and hence would not change the rights he is afforded. Genetics bear no relation to rights as an individual.

    Does the status "personhood" directly map to intelligence or self-awareness? No. Someone who is asleep, or mentally handicapped, has precisely an equal right to life as a healthy individual. It is a difficult question to answer, but that doesn't mean we should commandeer the rights of the mother (a person), just to avoid answering the question of when a foetus becomes a human being.
    They split from one source. They came from one human.

    Surely you must see the contradiction here. You are saying there was an individual that it divided into two individuals.


  • #1255
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    At 23 weeks, the chance of survival is about 17%. Source

    At 21 weeks, I doubt it would be much higher than 1-3%, and that's even in a developed country like in the USA or in Europe. This "miracle baby" was lucky in that it managed to survive birth, but its low birth rate may lead to physical and mental disabilities.

    I think that's totally irrelevant, the fact is at 21-24 weeks we know they can survive! They ARE human lives.
    For every 1000 late term abortions about 25% at least, by you're probability will survive, that's 250 babies who would have survived if they had been c-sectioned and not aborted. Do you really thin that's acceptable? If somebody walked into a hospital and killed 250 premature babies, the world would be disgusted and they'd do life in prison for 250 counts of murder.


  • #1256
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well it is some what beside the point, but yes people die all the freaking time due to shortages of blood and/or donor organs. Through out the western world there is a blood shortage, from the USA, to UK to Ireland, largely due to the increase in operations available. And people die on the transplant list all the time because a donor has not been found in time.

    Despite this we do not mandate that anyone give up blood or organs or violate their bodily privacy in any way without consent, even parents of children who require blood or organs from them.

    So why do we not legally require parents to give blood or organs without consent to help their children?

    I have actually checked this out with a very experienced medic and he said he has never heard of people dying from a shortage of blood donations in Ireland or Europe. Remember donation is only possible from living people with blood and kidneys or parts of others. Yes there is a dreadful organ shortage in this country but unwillingness to donate is not necessarily the cause of this shortage. The Irish Kidney Association chief executive Mark Murphy said a few weeks ago
    The willingness of the Irish public to donate is not the problem when it comes to organ donation.

    It is the lack of the required infrastructure, an organ donor registry and the employment of fully trained organ donor coordinators in all our hospitals.

    This is proven by the top 10 European donating countries that have identified and invested in infrastructure to achieve 30 donors per million of population (pmp) successfully and affordably.

    Mr Murphy says one reason for Spanish success in improving numbers is the role of transport co-ordinators in hospitals, who are much more pro-active than their counterparts in Ireland.

    “That is one of three things that need to be done in Ireland to improve our donor figures,” he says. ”Their co-ordinators actively promote and seek organs for donation, which doesn’t always happen in the intensive care units of Irish hospitals.”
    ...
    There are two other measures he feels are essential for Ireland to regain its respectable place in the league of European organ donation.

    “Firstly, there is no law about transplantation. This is governed by the 1832 human tissue act, and currently there is consultation about overhauling that legislation. But I would like to see non-human tissue being used in transplants, and a human tissue act only would rule that out.”

    “We also need a transplant authority, auditing transplant practice across the country.”
    link

    So it turns out the infamous kidney analogy is largely irrelevant to the Irish abortion debate. Very interesting.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Not an attempt to divert, genuine question.

    MrP

    I don't think it is relevant as the soul is not recognised in law. Maybe you should ask a theologian.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Personhood and individuality is all that is relevant. If you are going to arbitrarily imbue the right to life on a zygote, or an implanted zygote because the question of personhood is too difficult, then you might as well arbitrarily imbue the right to life on sperm and eggs. Conversely, if it turned out my friend had DNA made of skittles, it would not change his status as a person, and hence would not change the rights he is afforded. Genetics bear no relation to rights as an individual.

    Does the status "personhood" directly map to intelligence or self-awareness? No. Someone who is asleep, or mentally handicapped, has precisely an equal right to life as a healthy individual. It is a difficult question to answer, but that doesn't mean we should commandeer the rights of the mother (a person), just to avoid answering the question of when a foetus becomes a human being.

    Surely you must see the contradiction here. You are saying there was an individual that it divided into two individuals.
    Well its a perfectly normal occurrence in countless other organisms. Why are we so different? It is like insisting a Siamese twin MUST have two bodies as there are two individuals, even they actually share a body. I can understand you arguing that personhood has a fuzzy start but really and truly the beginning of human life doesn't. Before conception there is no offspring but after conception there is offspring. Simple as that really.


  • #1257
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Actually, that argument being advanced is that everyone has the right to life, the unborn included. This has been said several times now.

    Your right to life doesn't allow you to use the body of someone else to sustain you. My right to life doesn't allow me to use the body of someone else to sustain me. A new born babies right to life doesn't allow them to use the body of someone else to sustain it.

    So again why do the anti-abortion movement assert that a foetus has more rights than everyone else?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Except when it comes to the right to continued existence.

    No Fanny, read the post properly.

    A foetus has the same right to continued existence as everyone else. It can continue to exist so long as that existence does not require the violation of the body of someone else without that persons consent.

    Just like you. Just like me. Just like a 5 year old. Just like the President. Just like Barrack Obama.

    So again explain to me why for 9 months the foetus has more rights than anyone else, and why it loses those rights as soon as it is born.


  • #1258
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robp wrote: »
    They split from one source. They came from one human.

    As you have said already. And I'm asking you which person. You know, a person, the thing that has identify and rights.

    If you killed the zygote would you be killing Mary Kate or would you be killing Ashley?
    robp wrote: »
    Well I clearly wrote personhood is not relevant here. Its about human life not persons. Personhood is too open to philosophical sophistry. In Spain chimpanzees are 'persons' legally. Chimpanzees are amazing animals deserving of ample respect and freedom from cruelty but they don't deserve equal rights imo.

    Sorry, my mistake, so you don't mind killing persons who can think feel reason and are self aware, you just don't want to kill humans that are the size of a pin head, have no brains and are just made up of a few cells. Because they have like DNA and stuff.

    I'm not sure you have thought your position through very well ... :rolleyes:


  • #1259
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robp wrote: »
    So it turns out the infamous kidney analogy is largely irrelevant to the Irish abortion debate. Very interesting.

    What the hell are you talking about?

    We do not force people to give up kidneys. Your response to this seems to be we don't need to, as if that some how is relevant to why we don't.

    Are you seriously saying if we did need to we would? :confused::confused:

    Or do you just not have a serious response and are trying to stall for time? (man I hope it is the latter)


  • #1260
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Ending the life of your own child because its inconvenient to allow the use of your organs for a few months seems like a psychopathic argument to me. Its not like its permanent, and its not for some random person, its a life that the parents created, creating life comes with responsibility whether its accidental or not.

    Personally I would accept early stage medical abortions. That would take of the rape argument too. But how people can abort late term and not go to prison blows my mind. If I killed a newborn who was premature at 21-24 weeks, I'd get life, and people are doing it everyday and getting away with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    Ending the life of your own child because its inconvenient to allow the use of your organs for a few months seems like a psychopathic argument to me.

    You don't need to agree with the reasons someone has an abortion, you just need to see that that woman has the right to do so given that it is her body.

    For example if a child needed blood or a kidney from a parent you might well think less of the parent if they refused to do this. But that is a world away from requiring that the blood or kidney is removed from the parent against their wishes, which would never happen.


Advertisement