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

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

1…2829313334…37

Comments

  • #902
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    You can keep saying that the beginning of something is the same as that thing until you're blue in the face, it won't make it any more true.

    Is an acorn an oak tree? Apparently when pro-life logic is used, it is the same thing.

    Are they not the same species? and both alive, just at different stages of development?


  • #903
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    Akrasia wrote: »
    "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" does not equal 'A Tale of Two Cities'

    A fertilised egg does not equal a fully developed human being.

    ..no more than a pre-teen does not equal a mature adult.
    But both are recognised as the same species, at different stages of development.


  • #904
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Are they not the same species? and both alive, just at different stages of development?

    I think you'll find that it's the "different stages of development" that make all the difference between a zygote, embryo, foetus and baby. You know, like we've been trying to tell you for umpteen posts.


  • #905
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    I'll take that as a yes.

    You can take it as Irrelevant.


  • #906
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    You can take it as Irrelevant.

    You deliberately tried to give the impression that you were not arguing from a religious perspective with your "I don't believe in gods or elves" remark.

    I suspect you do believe in "God", as you are now obfuscating when called out on it.

    It doesn't affect the argument, and is irrelevant, but it's a slightly dishonest debating trick perhaps?


  • Advertisement
  • #907
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    I think you'll find that it's the "different stages of development" that make all the difference between a zygote, embryo, foetus and baby. You know, like we've been trying to tell you for umpteen posts.

    You said that the 'beginning of something is not that something"

    It clearly is, that's my point. For Umpteen posts.


  • #908
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    Duffman, are you against the morning after pill?


  • #909
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    You said that the 'beginning of something is not that something"

    It clearly is, that's my point. For Umpteen posts.
    It clearly isn't. An egg is not a chicken. An acorn is not an oak. An introductory paragraph is not an essay. An embryo is not a woman.


  • #910
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    You said that the 'beginning of something is not that something"

    It clearly is, that's my point. For Umpteen posts.

    It clearly isn't as you admitted yourself - unless of course we ignore the different stages of development, in which case we're back to you arguing that an acorn is the same thing as an oak tree.

    Different stages of development cannot be ignored, you cannot simply equate a foetus with an adult as if the differences were irrelevant simply because they are the same species.


  • #911
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    You deliberately tried to give the impression that you were not arguing from a religious perspective with your "I don't believe in gods or elves" remark.

    I suspect you do believe in "God", as you are now obfuscating when called out on it.

    It doesn't affect the argument, and is irrelevant, but it's a slightly dishonest debating trick perhaps?

    I've been very clear, and I've made clear that I have a scientific perspective, not a religious one. I've made this clear throughout.
    But you haven't presented any science to counter, so you're accusing me of 'obfuscating', or being ambiguous.
    For clarity, can you quote where I've used obfuscation. So I can understand your complaint, and accusation of dishonesty.
    If not, I can only conclude that the accusation of obfuscation is in itself a dishonest debating trick.


  • Advertisement
  • #912
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    They were on the same side for very different reasons.

    Bacik was against overturning X and restricting abortion.

    Dana was against it because it only gave protection to an embryo from the point of implantation as opposed to conception. She claimed the bill was really "pro-abortion" as it would essentially decriminalise the morning after pill.

    Exactly, that is why to some extent the No side won. Stupid Dana who did well in elections at that point in time, took yes votes away which ended up with the x case being legislated for eventually.
    Big own goal, Dana...


  • #913
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    It clearly isn't as you admitted yourself - unless of course we ignore the different stages of development, in which case we're back to you arguing that an acorn is the same thing as an oak tree.

    Different stages of development cannot be ignored, you cannot simply equate a foetus with an adult as if the differences were irrelevant simply because they are the same species.

    Both are Human Beings at different stages of development, I never stated otherwise.


  • #914
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    I've been very clear, and I've made clear that I have a scientific perspective, not a religious one. I've made this clear throughout.
    But you haven't presented any science to counter, so you're accusing me of 'obfuscating', or being ambiguous.
    For clarity, can you quote where I've used obfuscation. So I can understand your complaint, and accusation of dishonesty.
    If not, I can only conclude that the accusation of obfuscation is in itself a dishonest debating trick.

    You said that you didn't believe in gods, you introduced this to the debate so implicitly you think it's relevant. I then asked you to clarify if you meant what most people would infer, that you didn't believe in any gods, or were you simply being clever and saying you only didn't believe in gods in the plural.

    You were happy to volunteer that you don't believe in "gods", yet refuse to say whether that means you don't believe in "God" either. That's the obfuscation right there.

    As for your grasp of science - don't make me laugh.


  • #915
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Both are Human Beings at different stages of development, I never stated otherwise.

    You are implying that the stages of development are irrelevant to the abortion debate. That an embryo is the same as a child or an adult.


  • #916
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    ..no more than a pre-teen does not equal a mature adult.
    But both are recognised as the same species, at different stages of development.

    Species is not the issue here. You believe a zygote to be a full human, which is clearly is not. Your pre-teen argument is crazy. Are they still developing? yes, but they are still full humans.


  • #917
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    swampgas wrote: »
    You are implying that the stages of development are irrelevant to the abortion debate. That an embryo is the same as a child or an adult.


    In terms of our existence to being here posting in this thread. Those stages are every bit as relevant, or we wouldn't be here.


  • #918
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    RobertKK wrote: »
    In terms of our existence to being here posting in this thread. Those stages are every bit as relevant, or we wouldn't be here.

    I really don't get this - you seem to have this personal fear that if abortion is allowed you, yourself will pop out of existence.


  • #919
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Exactly, that is why to some extent the No side won. Stupid Dana who did well in elections at that point in time, took yes votes away which ended up with the x case being legislated for eventually.
    Big own goal, Dana...

    I don't think it would have passed anyway, since the same substantive question was asked in the 1992 referendum and it was defeated with no pro-life support.


  • #920
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    smash wrote: »
    Species is not the issue here. You believe a zygote to be a full human, which is clearly is not. Your pre-teen argument is crazy. Are they still developing? yes, but they are still full humans.

    Ethicists argued parents should be allowed to kill their babies as they are similar to the unborn.


  • #921
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    swampgas wrote: »
    I really don't get this - you seem to have this personal fear that if abortion is allowed you, yourself will pop out of existence.

    Maybe his mum has a time machine.


  • Advertisement
  • #922
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Ethicists argued parents should be allowed to kill their babies as they are similar to the unborn.

    What's that got to do with this discussion? Has anyone on this thread argued for that to be legalised?


  • #923
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    swampgas wrote: »
    I really don't get this - you seem to have this personal fear that if abortion is allowed you, yourself will pop out of existence.

    No, but one can't say that stage of life is less important or significant than another stage.
    From a biological viewpoint, every stage is just as relevant as any other stage for the existence of whatever lifeform.
    So I don't think one can pick a stage and demean it as being a less relevant stage.


  • #924
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    eviltwin wrote: »
    What's that got to do with this discussion? Has anyone on this thread argued for that to be legalised?

    Talk about 'full humans', please read what I replied to.


  • #925
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    RobertKK wrote: »
    No, but one can't say that stage of life is less important or significant than another stage.
    From a biological viewpoint, every stage is just as relevant as any other stage for the existence of whatever lifeform.
    So I don't think one can pick a stage and demean it as being a less relevant stage.

    Actually, you can say that.

    Are you saying that a tray with hundreds of of fertilized eggs is hundreds of times more important than a two-year old?

    Would you save the tray or the child if the building was on fire?


  • #926
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Talk about 'full humans', please read what I replied to.

    We're talking about abortion, not killing living people. Stop derailing the thread.


  • #927
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    eviltwin wrote: »
    We're talking about abortion, not killing living people. Stop derailing the thread.


    It was a valid point even if you or others disagree,


  • #928
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    You said that you didn't believe in gods, you introduced this to the debate so implicitly you think it's relevant. I then asked you to clarify if you meant what most people would infer, that you didn't believe in any gods, or were you simply being clever and saying you only didn't believe in gods in the plural.

    You were happy to volunteer that you don't believe in "gods", yet refuse to say whether that means you don't believe in "God" either. That's the obfuscation right there.

    As for your grasp of science - don't make me laugh.

    You can take it to mean the singular or plural, an easy interpretation, fully inclusive. Not vague at all. You're clutching at straws here.
    And it wasn't me who started a discussion on the 'supernatural'.


  • #929
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It was a valid point even if you or others disagree,

    How is it a valid point? :confused:


  • #930
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    smash wrote: »
    Species is not the issue here. You believe a zygote to be a full human, which is clearly is not. Your pre-teen argument is crazy. Are they still developing? yes, but they are still full humans.

    Please present the scientific proof that a zygote is not " a full human".


  • Advertisement
  • #931
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    swampgas wrote: »
    Actually, you can say that.

    Are you saying that a tray with hundreds of of fertilized eggs is hundreds of times more important than a two-year old?

    Would you save the tray or the child if the building was on fire?

    Their stage of development is as important as the the two year old when he/she was at the same stage.
    To that child that stage was every bit as important as any other stage of his/her life.

    I don't run into burning buildings, I am not qualified to do so.


Advertisement