‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Yes it is, but it's death by natural causes, not deliberate killing.

but I thought these were babies. would you stand by while babies died of natural causes?

by your logic, we should be moving heaven and earth to save these babies.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Any specifics?

Any post you said the word "science" or "fact" in. Particularly the ones that have both in them.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

And the other studies I've posted? Any opinion on those?

You didn't post studies. I found the link you used. It's a handful of quotes with their references. You didn't even read the papers yourself, nevermind break them down or think critically about them.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Taking your abortion views from anti-religion is just as mad as taking them from religion.

Probably the only thing you have written today that I agree with. Taking views on abortion from a religion or anti religious stance is unhelpful. In this we are entirely agreed.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Science is clear - All mammals begin life with conception.

It might help if you quote the "science" in this particular case. Which papers are you referring to? How did they identify "life" in this context and how and where exactly did they clearly declare it to begin at conception?

Because you are wandering into my field here and I am unaware of any science material which suggests this. Rather conception is merely one step in a cyclical life cycle. A cyclical cycle which does not delimit any point arbitrarily as the "beginning".

But I am sure if you cite and exact peer reviewed science you are referring to, we can synchronize our data set here.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

So now you agree that a human foetus IS alive. Quite the turnaround. So, as a young human being, why should we have less legal protection that older human beings?

I would say that the human fetus is a stage in the human life cycle. However to throw out the word "alive" and then jump from there to "rights" and "legal protection" or to make any moral or ethical statements about it.... is too much a leap. You have gone straight from A to Z and skipped multiple steps in between.

It is not just that your use of biology terms is not entirely accurate, it is that even if we grant your use of biology terms, you are not laying out the pathway from those terms to morality, ethics, legal and other rights.

Simply the term "alive" does not get you there on its own. To get into the realm of morality, ethics, law and rights you have to make a meaningful connect to this concept of "living" and I am not seeing that in your posts in general, and much less in the snide swipes like "have you heard of biology" and similar.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Here's a Peer-reviewed Scientific Paper

No. It is not. It is a commissioned and self published white-paper that can be found on a pro life website for the "Bioethics Defense Fund", on a catholic think tank website fundamentally opposed to abortion, and text from it, and other writings from the author, are reproduced also on the website for "First Things" which described itself as a "JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE.".

It is a propaganda opinion piece, not a peer reviewed science piece.

Further however the author of the paper makes the same point to you that I just did above, which is that even if we grant your rather arbitrary start point, that does not end the debate on abortion. You still have all your work ahead. Here are the words from your link to support this:

"An honest debate about abortion, however, is about values based on facts. If we don't get the facts right, we will not get our values right. Establishing by clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins. ... It is a scientific examination of facts which, when clearly understood, provide the subject matter upon which other forms of reasonable reflection-medical, moral, legal, political, and theological -- can then be brought to bear."

So you are willfully misusing the authors paper in a way the author actually preempted and predicted. Rights do not come from existence or life, but from personhood and humanity, none of which are even remotely present in a human cell, active or not.

In many ways also the "conception" cut off point is rendered further meaningless. here is a little known to the general Joe but very common occurrence in the zygote that hammers a hole right into the "at conception" argument. Imagine the cell is a "new life" for a moment.

Often the cell splits into twins. More often than you think. What has happened here? Has a new life popped up AFTER conception? This kills the "all life is at conception" idea. Or has the life of the one become two halves? I would love to see you tell twins they are only half-alive!

Why are there not more twins then if this happens so often? Well because often, for no reason we know yet, one twin REABSORBS the other. What happened here? Did half alive twins become one? Did one murder the other? Is one life suddenly dead, or if you are religious cast into eternal limbo as an un-baptised soul?

No CLEARLY this arithmetic of souls makes NO sense.

Some further errors in that white paper however are also covered here.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Embryology is still looking into it. Science never stops.
Science doesn't believe in 'heaven and earth' - don't let religion blur your understanding of biology.

Don't let your understanding of biology blur actual biology. Why are you still insisting on using science as your reasoning?

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

Embryology is still looking into it. Science never stops.
Science doesn't believe in 'heaven and earth' - don't let religion blur your understanding of biology.

so, are you in favor of trying to retrieve all these zygotes who have fallen on hard times?

also, if life begins at conception, then abortions happen all day every day here, with the moring after pill.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

I don't believe in gods or elfs.
And so you ignore all the other science papers I've referenced, and the multitude more that exist on the subject.

You didn't reference science papers.

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Forcing them to travel and cough up circa €1,300 is not very humane.

oh yes it is . i'd rather that then the irish tax payer having to fork out for free abortions. if you want to have an abortion, thats your choice. but you should pay for it. nobody is "forced" to do anything

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Twelve women a day take the boat, it's time we stopped exporting this issue and legislate for it at home.

its not. unless the tax payer has no part in it what so ever

bodice ripper wrote: »

misread perhaps, misquote, no:

yeah you did it again....you're misquoting me and making it look like i'm anti abortion ....it was only two lines you left out..just leave them in for the total picture...if anything you've just proven what i said.

and my point was....its sad that we have to argue when life begins...when anyone with kids knows it begins at the start...why can't we just agree on that and have abortion just like in the UK.