Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

I dont like pre-meditated murder either, so I don't do it, further, I support laws made in every society in the world which forbid it.

I hope you feel that way every time you beat one out, you know, because of the life and all...

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Obviously not the same. Open a junior cert biology book ffs.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here, maybe finish second year and then see about the junior cert....

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Considering it's what I study in college I think I'd know better than you would, I'm merely illustrating the nonsensical notion that a clump of protein and DNA is life that will be murdered. It's not "life", it's potential life, just like egg and sperm cells are.

To say it's "premeditated murder" is completely preposterous, and ridiculously dramatic.

It's demonstrably less preposterous than saying that sperm cells are equivalent to a fertilised ovum, developing zygote or foetus. They are radically different.

Back to the books lad.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's demonstrably less preposterous than saying that sperm cells are equivalent to a fertilised ovum, developing zygote or foetus. They are radically different.

Back to the books lad.

Really, just as preposterous as claiming a blastocyst comprised of a handful of stem cells is a child with all the equal rights of a human and the destruction of that is premeditated murder?

Yeah, I don't think you should be the one to patronise me.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Really, just as preposterous as claiming a blastocyst comprised of a handful of stem cells is a child with all the equal rights of a human and the destruction of that is premeditated murder?

Yeah, I don't think you should be the one to patronise me.

The childish notion that a sperm cell or unfertilised ovum is the same as fertilised egg is just way, way wrong.

I would have thought you'd have understood the process of fertilisaition and the quite remarkable significance of the process, given your studies. It's nothing about "murder" or the fertilised egg being a child! It's just that you're making no sense saying sperm cells are quivalent to a fertilised egg, zygote or foetus.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I said I'm in favour of abortion under 12 weeks.

Then you'll be able to tell us, what's the difference in killing them at 11 weeks and killing them at 13 weeks ?

_Redzer_ wrote: »

At a scientific level, it's all protein and DNA.

So my sperm is the same as you and has equivalent value? Is that what you're saying?

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Before the 12th week there's no brain activity. It's not alive, it has no characteristics of life.

Basic neural function starts shortly after this.

Shortly after what and when ? What makes it a human life at 13 weeks but not 11 ?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So my sperm is the same as you and has equivalent value? Is that what you're saying?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying a fertilised cell is equal to a sperm or egg cell in that they're not the same as me, a fully developed man, nor are they equal.

To compare something that doesn't yet possess any of the characteristics of what it is to be human to a fully developed, living, breathing human being is what is ridiculous.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying a fertilised cell is equal to a sperm or egg cell in that they're not the same as me, a fully developed man, nor are they equal.

To compare something that doesn't yet possess any of the characteristics of what it is to be human to a fully developed, living, breathing human being is what is ridiculous.

To be honest, both extremes are ridiculous.

But you have suggested that a sperm cell is the same as a fertilised egg. and that's scientifically speaking, nonsense.

strobe wrote: »

I'm very much pro-choice, but please tell me I'm not the only one that cringes with contact embarrassment when someone on 'my side' of the debate uses that tired lazy line...

Its genuinely the worst attempted argument for or against anything I've ever come across. Just... dismal... disingenuous and lazy and dismal...

I feel it might work if it was closely followed by a "keep your rosaries off our ovaries."

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Classic strawman argument. I don't think anything of the sort.

I mention incubators to merely to show that at a certain stage of pregnancy, it is possible for unborn babies to survive outside the womb and so they should at this stage I feel it unconscionable to have them aborted. Nothing more and nothing less.

Is it possible for the unborn baby to survive outside the womb without medical intervention? I feel it is unconscionable too to have them aborted too, but, as you said yourself - life is tough. You say people should take personal responsibility for their actions, yet you would wish to prevent them from doing so when they choose to take responsibility for what happens to their own body.

First of all. The argument was made that abortions are excusable because development is not complete and so you are actually making my point for me with most of the above. You say to make the argument that an unborn child could survive independent from the mother, then it must also be able to do so without the aid of medical intervention but I fail to see why as I am just making the point that it is now a living entity. Using your logic, people on life support machines are no longer to be considered living entities. Also, isn't funny how when you used the term "unborn child" nobody quoted you with: "THERE IS NO CHILD" as happened another user when they used the term.

First off, I don't find anything amusing or funny about people suffering. Some people do, I'm not one of them.

The reason I make the point about medical intervention is because keeping a person alive by artificial means just means they exist, but you must also give due regard to their quality of life. Keeping a person in a permanent vegetative state because we don't want them to die is both cruel and inhumane and offers the person no respect or dignity by keeping them alive with no quality of life. You could preserve a person immortally in that state providing there was a constant supply of electricity to keep the machine going.

The same principle applies to an incubation unit - without electricity, you cannot keep a premature baby alive. With electricity, you can keep them alive, but what quality of life will they have when their mother has rejected them? Will you also want a say in the child's personal, educational and social development, or is it just the case that you lose interest once the child is outside the womb? When the child becomes a teenager, will you take an interest in their relationships and sexual education? When they are an adult, will you be their relationships counsellor? If they develop a terminal illness or suffer an accident that leaves them in a vegetative state, will you pay their medical bills to keep them on life support?

Don't stress yourself, I wouldn't expect you to answer any of the above questions on a whim, but I would ask that you go away and have a think about them. When you advocate for another person's right to life, you make yourself responsible for their quality of life. If you're not willing to take on that burden on yourself, you have no right to expect anyone else should.

Ah more accusations that I am of the opinion that women are just incubators. It's quite clear I am not, but I understand that is easier to dismiss my what I say if you suggest that I do.

It's because I am NOT dismissive of your opinion that I have listened to you say that a woman's role in the development of the foetus is so easily replaceable by a machine. I can't afford to be dismissive of your opinion because right now in Ireland, Irish law supports your point of view.

Well, you have already suggested I do believe this, so this comment is just out and out personal abuse. Strange how only one side of this debate has felt the need to resort to personal insults.

I don't mean you personally when I say "you", I mean people of your mindset, who share your opinion. If a person then, fails to empathise with the suffering of another person, then I think it's safe to say that they have the emotional intellect of a machine. I understand that you empathise with the human life growing inside the woman, but your empathy for the woman seems to end with an arbitrary time limit. If you know anything about human development and pregnancy, you know that human body clock is only an expression, it's not an actual thing.

It is the other side of this debate that support a woman choosing to abort a living, developing fetus, which has the potential to survive outside the womb and yet you accuse me of having the God complex? I really hope the hypocrisy of what you are saying is not lost on you.

Remember when I said that thing about human beings not being black and white? For me there are no sides. It's quite straightforward for me - I would not want any human being to suffer unnecessarily. If personal responsibility is to mean anything, then the only person a person has to answer to for their actions is themselves. If that means ending a pregnancy because they do not want to be pregnant, then that should be their choice, because they alone will have to live with the consequences of their decision. Life, as you said yourself, is tough. There's no need to inflict unnecessary suffering on another person to make their life any more insufferable. If you allow for the continued suffering of another human being, then you are responsible for allowing them to continue to suffer unnecessarily, for your own good, because it sure as hell isn't for theirs, and despite your claims to show concern for the unborn child, your stance is quite the contrary, because your stance only advocates for taking personal responsibility from another human being.

You act as if women can abort the unborn at any stage of their pregnancies. The judgement which you speak of, is not just being made by me by the way, it is being made all the time, by people throughout the world and it is what is at the heart of of abortion legislation. You wouldn't support an non-life saving abortion at 7 months would you? But why not? Who the hell are you to judge what another person can and cannot choose for their own body?

You might want to read back through the thread yourself. I have already stated numerous times now that I support abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, and further to that, I support euthanasia at any stage of human development outside the womb.

More snide abuse. I wouldn't mind if what I said was anything to close to it. How pointing out that children that have been born premature can survive from outside the womb means that I see women as nothing but incubators is beyond me. That is a strange kind of logic you are using. Take my point or don't but please quit suggesting I feel things which I most certainly do not.

I'm actually working off the assumption that you're not a special sort of righteous cnut, because I prefer to seek out the best in people, rather than acknowledge the worst. That's called hope - something you (not you personally) take away from a woman when you force her to give birth against her will, something you take away from a child when you force them into a world where they are rejected by their own mother. As resilient as children are, rejection by their biological parent leaves an indelible mark on their psychological make-up, right into adulthood.

you spent more time reading the thread than abusing people, you might actually see that I unequivocally support abortions when the life of the mother or child is at stake. Does that sound like someone who shows no concern for a woman's welfare? Of course not, but sure why let the truth get in the way of your sanctimonious starwmanning rant.

You'd do well to read the thread yourself, with less of your own sanctimonious strawmanning rants. It seems your attention span is as limited as your empathy. That's not personal abuse, that's an observation.

Why would I do that when I do care about pregnant women's welfare. Guess you must have missed this post:

Time-limited empathy, if only more human beings had the luxury of arbitrary cut-off points for their emotions and their empathy, well it would be much easier to go through life and say to yourself "it'll pass, life is tough, deal with it"... except the problem is, that unlike machines, the human mind is far more complex, and some people never come to terms with the consequences of their actions.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

To be honest, both extremes are ridiculous.

But you have suggested that a sperm cell is the same as a fertilised egg. and that's scientifically speaking, nonsense.

I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum. It's the logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result.

To highlight the ridiculousness of holding a fertilised cell and a fully formed human as equal, when that's not true at all, when I could say in irony that the basic components of a sperm cell, egg cell and zygote are all very similar in how incredibly basic they are in structure -and that they are equal in that they are all potential vectors for life.