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…2930323435…37

Comments

  • #932
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.

    They're relevant in the development cycle. This does not make the early stages full human beings. It just makes them part of a process. Much like flour is not a pancake.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Ethicists argued parents should be allowed to kill their babies as they are similar to the unborn.
    so?


  • #933
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Please present the scientific proof that a zygote is not " a full human".

    You mean it's not an adult? As in fully grown? Surely it's obvious - do you need a microscope to look at an adult?


  • #934
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Please present the scientific proof that a zygote is not " a full human".
    the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo.

    There.


  • #935
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    I'm sorry, but that's incoherent.


  • #936
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    What do you think is worse....blowing up a fertility clinic full of these embryos or blowing up a school?


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    Wow... back up there. Now you're muddying the waters Robert. Is a tray of fertilised eggs as they currently stand, as important as a 2 year old as they currently stand?

    Answer the question.


  • #938
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    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.

    Thanks for the clarification.


  • #939
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Please present the scientific proof that a zygote is not " a full human".

    Can I ask, just as an overall question if you believe that 8 or 10 'full human beings' are being killed each day by Irish women going overseas?


  • #940
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    Thought experiments don't relate to if you're qualified to or not.. If only fertilised eggs or the two year old can be saved, which should be saved? By your logic the fertilised eggs should be a greater priority.


  • #941
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    smash wrote: »
    There.

    Em, try again, with references specifically stating that a Zygote is not a full human pls.


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Em, try again, with references specifically stating that a Zygote is not a full human pls.

    It has a full set of human DNA, and is as human as an adult, or as a fresh corpse.

    This "full human" thing is silly though - what does it even mean?

    Are you trying to ignore the fact that a zygote is a very very very undeveloped human being?


  • #943
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Em, try again, with references specifically stating that a Zygote is not a full human pls.

    You have tried and failed miserably to provide a quote to state that it is a full human being.

    But here, I'll provide my quotes which state that it is not:
    A zygote is capable of splitting to give rise to identical twins. Since the zygote cannot be identical with either human being it will become, it cannot already be a human being.
    A zygote gives rise not only to a human being but also to a placenta - it cannot already be both a human being and a placenta.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076123


  • #944
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    swampgas wrote: »
    It has a full set of human DNA, and is as human as an adult, or as a fresh corpse.

    This "full human" thing is silly though - what does it even mean?

    Are you trying to ignore the fact that a zygote is a very very very undeveloped human being?

    This, exactly. At some point the pro-birth proponents are going to have to wake up to the fact that a potential majority (we don't know yet as we haven't voted on the issue in 32 years) of people don't have much of an issue with killing a non-sentient human foetus who has yet to develop a central nervous system.


  • #945
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    smash wrote: »
    You have tried and failed miserably to provide a quote to state that it is a full human being.

    But here, I'll provide my quotes which state that it is not:



    Or:
    In this paper I defend the view that a zygote is a human from the fission objection that is widely thought to be decisive against the view. I do so, drawing upon a recent discussion of this issue by John Burgess, by explaining in detail the metaphysical position the proponent of the view should adopt in order to rebut the objection.


  • #946
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    Shrap wrote: »
    This, exactly. At some point the pro-birth proponents are going to have to wake up to the fact that a potential majority (we don't know yet as we haven't voted on the issue in 32 years) of people don't have much of an issue with killing a non-sentient human foetus who has yet to develop a central nervous system.

    So, tell us when you differentiate between abortion and murder.
    At what specific moment/event do you think we become full human beings.
    Please quote sources.


  • #947
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    smash wrote: »
    You have tried and failed miserably to provide a quote to state that it is a full human being.

    But here, I'll provide my quotes which state that it is not:



    Or:
    In this paper I defend the view that a zygote is a human from the fission objection that is widely thought to be decisive against the view. I do so, drawing upon a recent discussion of this issue by John Burgess, by explaining in detail the metaphysical position the proponent of the view should adopt in order to rebut the objection.
    Nobody - nobody - is claiming that a zygote is not human. What we are saying is that it is only a zygote. Do you think a zygote knows nor cares that it even exists? Of course not, it's no more conscious than my toenail.

    You can't even see it with the naked eye, yet you insist that a woman's life should be held inferior to it?


  • #948
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    swampgas wrote: »
    Nobody - nobody - is claiming that a zygote is not human. What we are saying is that it is only a zygote. Do you think a zygote knows nor cares that it even exists? Of course not, it's no more conscious than my toenail.

    You can't even see it with the naked eye, yet you insist that a woman's life should be held inferior to it?

    I never stated that, please don't make things up.


  • #949
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So, tell us when you differentiate between abortion and murder.
    At what specific moment/event do you think we become full human beings.
    Please quote sources.

    This should be the real debate. And there's no easy or correct answer. However most countries that have faced the question have decided that somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks is the cut off between acceptable and unacceptable for the killing of a foetus.


  • #950
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So, tell us when you differentiate between abortion and murder.
    At what specific moment/event do you think we become full human beings.
    Please quote sources.

    You didn't yet answer my question but I'm assuming from the above that you're saying that the current situation is akin to 8-10 children being killed every day.

    I don't know about you but I don't think people on your side of the debate do think that. Like really believe it.

    If they did, everyone would be up in arms.

    Shame in you that the biggest thing you're doing about this mass murder is entering an intractable scientific debate on an anonymous website.

    If a sizeable portion of the country really believed that, there would be an armed struggle going on.


  • #951
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Or:
    In this paper I defend the view that a zygote is a human from the fission objection that is widely thought to be decisive against the view. I do so, drawing upon a recent discussion of this issue by John Burgess, by explaining in detail the metaphysical position the proponent of the view should adopt in order to rebut the objection.

    So where's the scientific facts that you keep talking about?


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    I never stated that, please don't make things up.

    Sorry, may have misquoted you there. I quoted a mangled post.


  • #953
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So, tell us when you differentiate between abortion and murder.
    At what specific moment/event do you think we become full human beings.
    Please quote sources.

    You want him to provide sources for his opinion?


  • #954
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So, tell us when you differentiate between abortion and murder.
    At what specific moment/event do you think we become full human beings.
    Please quote sources.

    Murder = killing of born human
    Abortion = killing of foetus

    Of course, personally and similarly with all countries that have legal abortion I consider a foetus at the point of viability (or even before) to be developed enough that an abortion should only be for medical reasons. Up to the point that it has no central nervous system though, I wouldn't have any moral issues with abortion at all.

    You don't need sources for the above definitions, they're common to most countries bar the ones that even imprison women for having miscarriages.


  • #955
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Shrap wrote: »
    Murder = unlawful killing of born human
    Abortion = killing of foetus
    FYP

    If abortion is legal, it can't be murder.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #956
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    SW wrote: »
    FYP

    If abortion is legal, it can't be murder.

    But she/he said "born human"

    Scratch that.... I need a coffee, I'm running a bit slow.


  • #957
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So, tell us when you differentiate between abortion and murder. At what specific moment/event do you think we become full human beings. Please quote sources.
    swampgas wrote: »
    This should be the real debate. And there's no easy or correct answer. However most countries that have faced the question have decided that somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks is the cut off between acceptable and unacceptable for the killing of a foetus.

    I see Duffman conveniently ignored my rebuttal to his post yesterday quoting an opinion piece white paper. Especially the part where the author specifically suggested not using that paper in the manner that it was used here.

    Clearly however what is muddying the waters here is the Anti Choice campaigners leaping between the word "Human" and its various meanings. There appears to be some move by them to establish the zygote as "Human" and then to afford it ALL the implications that word entails.

    This is, at the very least, a total canard by the anti choice side. Establishing the zygote as biologically "Human", a biological fact no one is really disputing in the first place, and then attempting to afford the zygote every implication of the word "Human" is simply linguistic trickery facilitated merely be us having one word for several different contexts. Had we two different words for it, their non-argument would be a failure before it even was attempted instead of just after.

    We can not merely leap between the word "Human" in a biological sense, to "Human" in the philosophical sense of "Right to Life" and "Legal protection" and any other moral and ethical concerns we may have for fellow "Humans". The work of philosophical rigor is still all ahead of the anti choice campaigner who merely asserts the zygote to be a new human at conception.

    Duff, in his apparent MO of avoiding answering questions by asking further ones of his own, asks us when a zygote becomes "full human beings". I think this, in terms of abortion, is the wrong question to ask. Mainly because we do not currently have a scientific answer to this where a distinct line is drawn in the ground. And the measure many people do attempt, that of "viability" is, given advances in our medical sciences, a moving target with respect to time and progress and is so unworkable in something as fixed as law.

    Asking when it transitions from developing biological mass into being human is like trying to identify the exact point on a rainbow where red becomes orange. It is a meaningless question.

    But another question can be usefully answered in the context of abortion. Even if we can not identify a transition point, are we able to identify points where we can be usefully certain that no "humanity" is there? In other words, even if we can not identify where red becomes orange in a rainbow, can we at least identify a point that is clearly just red?

    And I think we can answer that. If for example we define humanity by the main attribute that distinguishes us from rocks, flora and fauna.... the faculty of human consciousness and awareness.... we can identify points in the development of the fetus where these things are simply entirely absent. In fact we can not just identify where those faculties are absent, but where the pre-requisites are absent.

    To use an analogy to radio, we can not just point to periods where the consciousness is absent (no radio waves) but that the producer of them is absent (the radio tower is not even built yet.

    And going about the question in this fashion very much does support the countries who have targeted cut off points up to 24 weeks. We have clear biological knowledge of the total absence of the radio tower in the fetus in these cases and I therefore have absolutely no humanism moral or ethical qualms about abortion up to 24 weeks, and most certainly not up to 12 weeks where in fact the vast majority of elective abortions are in fact performed.

    Further discussion on this and my references for it are in an articles I wrote here.


  • #958
    maniac2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭maniac2000


    "We have a road trip planned for the states next year, we are saving for a new apartment… I am just not ready … it’s not the best time for me right now…"

    that sums it up for me right there.. don't let the baby get in the way of a trip abroad..


  • #959
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    maniac2000 wrote: »
    "We have a road trip planned for the states next year, we are saving for a new apartment… I am just not ready … it’s not the best time for me right now…"

    that sums it up for me right there.. don't let the baby get in the way of a trip abroad..

    So, would you be prepared to abandon all your dreams and hopes because of a crisis pregnancy?

    Nice way of trivializing the fact that going ahead with the pregnancy would have turned this woman's life upside down.

    Sure what would a woman want to travel for anyway, she should stick to cooking in the kitchen and churning out babies, right?


  • #960
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    maniac2000 wrote: »
    "We have a road trip planned for the states next year, we are saving for a new apartment… I am just not ready … it’s not the best time for me right now…"

    that sums it up for me right there.. don't let the baby get in the way of a trip abroad..

    I don't know why people are so focused on her trip. I'm sure if the trip hadn't been planned she still would have made the same choice. If you're not ready, you're not ready.


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    swampgas wrote: »
    So, would you be prepared to abandon all your dreams and hopes because of a crisis pregnancy?

    Nice way of trivializing the fact that going ahead with the pregnancy would have turned this woman's life upside down.

    Sure what would a woman want to travel for anyway, she should stick to cooking in the kitchen and churning out babies, right?

    Not to mention that second part of the comment which the user above simply ignored. The comment about wishing to purchase a new apartment he simply left out when he was "summing up" the position of another human being. Amazing when someone who disagrees with you summarizes your views, they manage to do so in a way that does not actually reflect what you said.

    One of the advantages of our ability to control our reproductive processes is that we can in fact ensure we are housed in a useful way before we reproduce. And not wanting to have children until you are firmly and usefully established in a place where you can bring them up, is for me one of the most valid reasons out there for engaging in family planning.


Advertisement