ECHR rules on abortion

JimiTime · 25-12-2010 3:02am

Wicknight wrote: »

Give a reasonable argument, one other than just It's Alive! or It has a soul!

I mean I've no great affinity to abortion, if someone pointed out a solid moral argument against it I would be happy to agree. I already am against late term abortions precisely because of that happened.

The problem so far is that arguments against early term abortions either fall down because they appeal to meaningless standards (It's alive! And? ... It has human DNA! And? ..) or, worse still, supernatural mumbo jumbo.

The anti abortion crowd don't do themselves any favors in this regard.

TBH, the need for convincing in the first place is probably the issue. The fact that the innate sense of affection for our unborn children seems not to exist in them. Instead there's 'Prove its this, Can you really call it a such and such, or after this many weeks its that' etc etc. I mean, I just mentally stood back from this thread and thought, 'Look what the I'm trying to convince people of? How has it come to this?'

Improbable · 25-12-2010 7:03am

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, the need for convincing in the first place is probably the issue. The fact that the innate sense of affection for our unborn children seems not to exist in them. Instead there's 'Prove its this, Can you really call it a such and such, or after this many weeks its that' etc etc. I mean, I just mentally stood back from this thread and thought, 'Look what the I'm trying to convince people of? How has it come to this?'

Would you also prevent masturbation and contraception as well? Do you feel affection for your sperm or eggs? How about not having children at every available opportunity. You're denying a potential human being a chance to live. You've not quite managed to gain the moral high-ground of "oh you're so heartless, how could you be so cruel?" because you haven't adequately demonstrated why one is reprehensible and the other is acceptable.

MrPudding · 25-12-2010 9:35am

robindch wrote: »

Uncharacteristically contradictory, I have to say

If you accept that the foetus is alive, then you must accept that the foetus retains the rights that any living human being has -- and at the same level as the mum. You cannot deny, by fiat, the foetus' existential ability to have any rights in the first place.

I know it is somewhat contradictory, but not completely.

It is alive in the sense that many things are alive. It cannot be doubted that it is alive, but most, if not all, of the rights bestowed upon humans only come into force at birth. My argument is more of a "in the alternative" kind of argument. I believe that the foetus is alive in the sense that it is a hunch of cell that are alive, like any cells are alive. I do not necessarily believe it is a "person."

The second point is, even if it is a person, it then comes down to a balance of rights. In this I see the woman's rights as being more important than that of the foetus.

robindch wrote: »

In fact, with the great advances made in the last 50 years in child survival rates, I'd have said that in the absence of an existential threat to the continued survival of both mum and foetus, there's a credible utilitarian argument to be made that the rights of, say, a two month old foetus outweigh those of the mum.

Personally, my cut off point for abortion would be at the point when it is generally considered that the foetus could survive outside the womb. I don't think that is quite down to 8 weeks yet.

The thing I have a lot of difficulty with is the woman losing control over her own body. It just does not sit right with me. I really don't like abortion, not at all, but I dislike a fully grown adult being told that because she has gotten pregnant she has to live with the consequences, particularly when she is not willing or able to deal with the.

MrP

JimiTime · 25-12-2010 12:58pm

Improbable wrote: »

Would you also prevent masturbation and contraception as well? Do you feel affection for your sperm or eggs? How about not having children at every available opportunity. You're denying a potential human being a chance to live.

A sperm or an egg is NOT a growing child.

You've not quite managed to gain the moral high-ground of "oh you're so heartless, how could you be so cruel?" because you haven't adequately demonstrated why one is reprehensible and the other is acceptable.

Again, the fact that people need convincing, is probably the biggest issue. Also, I have not accused anyone of been heartless and cruel. You may think that is implied, but I'll leave you to your own thoughts on that. I certainly don't think people are automatically heartless and cruel if they are pro-abortion, or even if they have an abortion. Believe it or not, I empathise to a degree. What I lament, is the lack of natural affection for our unborn children.

Zombrex · 25-12-2010 2:40pm

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, the need for convincing in the first place is probably the issue. The fact that the innate sense of affection for our unborn children seems not to exist in them.

Affection is not the same as rights. I have an innate sense of affection for puppies, but I'm not going to say it is murder to put one down.

This is an aspect of the "choice" bit of pro-choice. It isn't that people think abortion is a wonderful thing, it is that while to many it is not ideal it is still not considered a crime. There is always going to be an emotional, often illogical, aspect of anything to do with children. I've seen some people who have miscarried take it fine and others be sad and depressed for years afterwards. The same thing happened to both of them. This comes down to emotion rather than reason. Fortunately (or unfortunately I guess depending on your point of view) we don't regulate law purely on emotional responses.

JimiTime wrote: »

'Look what the I'm trying to convince people of? How has it come to this?'

It has come to this because pro-life arguments don't stand up. That is the issue.

There is a strong, consistent and coherent argument for why a fetus at certain stages of early development does not possess the characteristics of humanity that we value as important.

If the only response to that is rhetoric about why do you have to respond at all, or appeals to emotions ("Its a baby!") then sorry they argument just isn't good enough.

liamw · 25-12-2010 3:08pm

JimiTime wrote: »

A sperm or an egg is NOT a growing child.

But a zygote or blastocyst does constitute a 'growing child'? At this stage in development what characteristics does the developing embryo have that would classify it as human with human rights? One could only argue the potential for development into a human.

A sperm blocked by a condom is also destroying potential for human life. You need to draw the line at a viable point. Some here are simply arguing that the point comes later in the development process.

JimiTime · 25-12-2010 4:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Affection is not the same as rights. I have an innate sense of affection for puppies, but I'm not going to say it is murder to put one down.

This is an aspect of the "choice" bit of pro-choice. It isn't that people think abortion is a wonderful thing, it is that while to many it is not ideal it is still not considered a crime. There is always going to be an emotional, often illogical, aspect of anything to do with children. I've seen some people who have miscarried take it fine and others be sad and depressed for years afterwards. The same thing happened to both of them. This comes down to emotion rather than reason. Fortunately (or unfortunately I guess depending on your point of view) we don't regulate law purely on emotional responses.

It has come to this because pro-life arguments don't stand up. That is the issue.

There is a strong, consistent and coherent argument for why a fetus at certain stages of early development does not possess the characteristics of humanity that we value as important.

If the only response to that is rhetoric about why do you have to respond at all, or appeals to emotions ("Its a baby!") then sorry they argument just isn't good enough.

Sometimes I don't think argument should be necessary. Then again, there was a time when people seen black people as disposable. Not that I think the pro-abortion side is convincing. Though I certainly see how one could be convinced in relation to extreme circumstance. This idea of 'choice' though is ludicrous. 'i should have a right to bodily integrity' etc. I can't believe people buy into such 'reasoning'

Also, I would much much much prefer people to choose not to abort, than to be forced by law not to abort etc. THAT is what I truly want. However, I think on the occasions when people DO want to kill their in utero growing child, we have a responsibility to speak out for the voiceless.

JimiTime · 25-12-2010 5:03pm

liamw wrote: »

But a zygote or blastocyst does constitute a 'growing child'?

Why not?

At this stage in development what characteristics does the developing embryo have that would classify it as human

From the moment of conception, a new life has begun. It is the beginning of the growth of a new human being.

One could only argue the potential for development into a human.

Again, this is the debate I wish one didn't have to have. 'At that stage its this, at this stage is that' etc.

A sperm blocked by a condom is also destroying potential for human life.

And If I decide to be celibate, I am destroying the potential for life etc. I am not talking about deciding not to procreate. I am against extinguishing the life of a growing in utero child.

You need to draw the line at a viable point. Some here are simply arguing that the point comes later in the development process.

Only because they are looking for a way to justify abortion IMO.

Zombrex · 25-12-2010 7:30pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Sometimes I don't think argument should be necessary.

Fair enough. Again that doesn't really move things forward though.

JimiTime wrote: »

Then again, there was a time when people seen black people as disposable.

There was, and then people like Wilderforce convinced others they were wrong with strong arguments and demonstrations

JimiTime wrote: »

Not that I think the pro-abortion side is convincing. Though I certainly see how one could be convinced in relation to extreme circumstance. This idea of 'choice' though is ludicrous. 'i should have a right to bodily integrity' etc. I can't believe people buy into such 'reasoning'

I would imagine you agree people have the right to bodily integrity, but feel while this is a sound principle other aspects when there is an unborn child involved supersede these rights, such as responsibility for the protection of children.

This issue then becomes articulating this point in a convincing manner to those who hold simply to the right to integrity argument, while either ignoring, being unconvinced or being unaware of stronger arguments.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, I would much much much prefer people to choose not to abort, than to be forced by law not to abort etc. THAT is what I truly want.

Well no offense Jimi but you aren't going to get very far by simply saying they should just agree with you and the fact that you have to try and convince them is the issue.

That is the sort of attitude that makes people on the other side of the fence think you side have just run out of good arguments.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, I think on the occasions when people DO want to kill their in utero growing child, we have a responsibility to speak out for the voiceless.

Well to be honest I think it does a disservice to the "voiceless" to not put forward arguments in support of them.

I would see a lot of the anti-abortion movements appeals to emotion and rhetoric as opposed to reasoned debate as the abortion debate equivalent of a WTO protester smashing up a McDonalds, ie might make them feel better but does little to move the debate along.

The heart of a healthy democracy is different opinions trying to come up with strong arguments to convince the other side of their position. Otherwise people just break off into factions who despise the other side for not automatically agreeing with them.

Zombrex · 25-12-2010 7:45pm

JimiTime wrote: »

A sperm or an egg is NOT a growing child.

When I hear things like this I really struggle not to do what I just gave out about what you did, ie I find it rather difficult to believe I have to even argue the flaws in this logic.

The egg is the first cells of a new life form using any arbitrary standard of "new life form" I can think of.

This becomes obvious when you look at the evolution of sexual reproduction, what it actually is. First asexual life simply broke a cell off from the parent organism and that was the new organism. And then sexual reproduction evolved that required that this cell had a jumble of DNA from the male of the species introduced. But the principle is the same, parent produces new cell that is new life form.

Sexual reproduction simply adds an extra stage, the addition of DNA from the sperm. The idea that this changes when a new life form exists seems ridiculous to me.

The life of any human child begins when the female parent creates the egg cells (oocytes) 10 weeks into the female parent's growth as a fetus.

If anyone wants to pick a time based on biology when the child's life begins it is then, when these cells are created. They exist from that point. After that it is simply the growth of these cells, including the point of fertilization.

JimiTime · 25-12-2010 8:51pm

Here is the argument Wicknight.

A human life is created at conception. Thats all I got. I wish nothing more needed to be argued. I could get involved in the 'what IS life' etc, but its like Pilates 'What IS truth' IMO. The best you can arrive at is that 'you don't know'. In which case, it would still better to walk on the side of caution when you consider what is the cost.

Anyway, maybe someone can articulate things in a manner you would respect more. For thats all I got really.

liamw · 25-12-2010 8:56pm

JimiTime wrote: »

From the moment of conception, a new life has begun. It is the beginning of the growth of a new human being.

JimiTime wrote: »

A human life is created at conception. Thats all I got. I wish nothing more needed to be argued.

This is the problem. Not everybody agrees that conception is the beginning of human life (and therefore human rights). There is a discussion to be had. The answer is not clearly conception even though you seem determined that it is.

Zombrex · 26-12-2010 12:01am

JimiTime wrote: »

Here is the argument Wicknight.

A human life is created at conception. Thats all I got. I wish nothing more needed to be argued. I could get involved in the 'what IS life' etc, but its like Pilates 'What IS truth' IMO. The best you can arrive at is that 'you don't know'. In which case, it would still better to walk on the side of caution when you consider what is the cost.

A human life isn't created at conception. A human life is created when the mother, still a fetus herself, creates egg cells. These are the FIRST cells of a new life.

The issue EVERYONE has with that is that no one gives a fudge about these cells. The mother herself will discard the vast majority of them when she has her period.

Conception is argued as some magic point when a new life is created not because that is actually true but because it is easy for us to mentally in-vision that happening.

So not only is the argument not particularly strong from the point of view of asking why is human life important in the first place, but it is also rather factually inaccurate.

It should therefore not be particularly suprising that people aren't convinced by it.

I wonder yourself if you are actually convinced by it, given that 8 out of 10 fertilized eggs will naturally terminate.

You will notice we don't hold this up as the creates single threat to human life ever faced, killing more children than all other human disease combined. We don't divert the billions we spend trying to cure cancer or AIDS or combat child poverty into trying to sustain the tens of millions of fertilized eggs that die each year.

Not only that but "pro-life" campaigners aren't calling for us to do this either. They don't particularly care that much about these "voiceless innocents" if the mothers body is terminating them naturally. That is fine, even though we wouldn't say that if the child was dying of cancer or some other naturally occurring threat.

It is really quite difficult to take people that seriously when they proclaim that the valuable "personhood", the thing we cherish and bestow rights upon, begins at conception.

I simply believe people have not thought it through, considered what do I actually hold as valuable and why.

My 2 cents anyway, like I said abortion is not something I have particularly ideological necessity about. It is not a core aspect of my atheism or anything like that, some of my atheist friends are very anti-abotion (though that always sounds like a Some of my friends are black excuse

)

Just like gay adoption (where often the focus is on how unfair it is that gay people don't have kids, rather than whether being raised by a gay couple is or isn't harmful) I am rather put of by some pro-choice people with this argument that it is the mothers rights issue, as if the question an issue of leaving the mother alone to have abortions, rather than the real issue of whether abortion itself is actually moral.

Women don't have a right to abortion just because they want to have the right to abortion. Like I said, come up with a good argument and I'll listen. So far though good argument on both sides of the fence seem serverly lacking.

Shenshen · 26-12-2010 1:01pm

drkpower wrote: »

In fairness, the vast majority of pregnancies are relatively uncomplicated. Although, no doubt there are a very small number of pregnancies whre there is a genuine risk to the health of the mother, which must be the priority.

I'd advise a chat with a doctor if that is seriously what you believe.

Shenshen · 26-12-2010 1:11pm

Jakkass wrote: »

MrPudding: There is no right to live. There is only a right to life if your mother allows it. That isn't liberty to live a free life. Either all people have the right to life, or all don't, at least if we're trying to be egalitarian about it.

As with all rights, your right to live ends where it comes into conflict with my rights, in this case the right to determine who does and who doesn't get to use parts of my body.

Either people have the right to determine what happens to their bodies, or they don't.
As it stands, half the human race in Ireland have this right, alive or dead. They have the absolute say in who gets to use their bodies, or parts thereof, and who doesn't. Even when dead, that right can't be violated, and it doesn't matter in the least if their decisions shorten the life spans of others.

The other half do not have that right. They are not allowed to determine the fates of their own bodies, they are forced by law to allow another person to use and damage it.

I fail to see how this is in any way egalitarian.

Shenshen · 26-12-2010 1:15pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Here is the argument Wicknight.

A human life is created at conception. Thats all I got. I wish nothing more needed to be argued. I could get involved in the 'what IS life' etc, but its like Pilates 'What IS truth' IMO. The best you can arrive at is that 'you don't know'. In which case, it would still better to walk on the side of caution when you consider what is the cost.

Anyway, maybe someone can articulate things in a manner you would respect more. For thats all I got really.

So if you found yourself in a burning fertility clinic, you would grab the 50 frozen zygotes to carry out to safety rather than the one screaming baby?

JimiTime · 26-12-2010 3:04pm

Shenshen wrote: »

So if you found yourself in a burning fertility clinic, you would grab the 50 frozen zygotes to carry out to safety rather than the one screaming baby?

Not at all, but I don't think that means it would be ok to go in and torch the place myself.

robindch · 26-12-2010 4:32pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I wish nothing more needed to be argued. I could get involved in the 'what IS life' etc, but its like Pilates 'What IS truth' IMO. The best you can arrive at is that 'you don't know'.

I think it's perhaps wiser to try to understand the issue from different perspectives and come to one's own conclusion, rather than to declare discussion pointless and the truth of somebody else's answer.

Pilate's question, btw, is deeper than a casual reader would assume from John's treatment of it.

recedite · 26-12-2010 6:33pm

Wicknight wrote: »

A human life isn't created at conception. A human life is created when the mother, still a fetus herself, creates egg cells. These are the FIRST cells of a new life.

The issue EVERYONE has with that is that no one gives a fudge about these cells. The mother herself will discard the vast majority of them when she has her period.

Conception is argued as some magic point when a new life is created not because that is actually true but because it is easy for us to mentally in-vision that happening.

AFAIK these egg cells are haploid and are not viable on their own. But, in some lower animals (up to the level of reptiles) egg cells can sometimes develop without the addition of sperm cells; a process known as parthenogenesis. So, in humans, although most of your cells are alive, only a fertilised egg can go on to develop an independent personality. That still, leaves the question though, at what point is it's personality sufficiently developed to warrant protection? As cavedave pointed out, in some ancient cultures which practiced infanticide, it seems they had to smile and interact, ie "bond" with an adult, before being granted full protection. Even after that, they are still wholly dependent on others, especially the mother during breastfeeding, so they live a sort of parasitic existence for a very long time........sometimes until after they finally finish at college

cavedave · 26-12-2010 7:31pm

recedite
As cavedave pointed out, in some ancient cultures which practiced infanticide, it seems they had to smile and interact, ie "bond" with an adult, before being granted full protection.

It is not just ancient cultures in cultures where survival is difficult it is still a common view. In 'don't sleep there are snakes' the pira amazonian indians still have a similar view.

I presume a lot of the view on not thinking of newborns as fully human comes as a self defense mechanism. Given the huge mortality rate of babies before immunizations and clean water it is understandable that you would attempt not to get too attached to babies until they have passed the most dangerous time of their lives.

Some people are discussing the moral situation with collections of human cells. It might be worth thinking a bit about Henrietta Lacks. A woman who tragically died in 1951 yet whose genetic material lives on as an immortal cell line.

recedite · 26-12-2010 8:33pm

cavedave wrote: »

Henrietta Lacks. A woman who tragically died in 1951 yet whose genetic material lives on as an immortal cell line.

Cancerous cells, I think. Is it theoretically possible to extract Henrietta's DNA from the cell line, insert it into someone elses egg cell, and create a clone of Henrietta? Getting a bit Frankensteinish now :eek:

keppler · 26-12-2010 8:58pm

recedite wrote: »

Cancerous cells, I think. Is it theoretically possible to extract Henrietta's DNA from the cell line, insert it into someone elses egg cell, and create a clone of Henrietta? Getting a bit Frankensteinish now :eek:

Cervical cancer cells I think, taken without her permission

cavedave · 26-12-2010 9:17pm

recedite

Cancerous cells, I think. Is it theoretically possible to extract Henrietta's DNA from the cell line, insert it into someone elses egg cell, and create a clone of Henrietta? Getting a bit Frankensteinish now

Maybe in some sort of scifi future. The cells originally taken from Henrietta (without her permission) are genetically partly HPV part Human. The weight of these cells in the labs of the world is probably that of several humans. The cell line is also such a vital part of modern biological research this part of Henrietta's genetic material will probably be alive for a long time to come.

I have no idea how (or if) this relates to the abortion debate

drkpower · 26-12-2010 11:29pm

Shenshen wrote: »

I'd advise a chat with a doctor if that is seriously what you believe.

Ive had a chat with a few (including myself!); but you might clarify what part of what I said that causes you a difficulty rather than just make a glib comment.

Zombrex · 27-12-2010 3:16am

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK these egg cells are haploid and are not viable on their own.

That isn't really relevant to my point. The question was what is the first cell or stage of the new life form. I agree that the egg will not develop without the presence of the sperm cell (why would it, that is after all the point of sexual reproduction). But it is still the first cell.

If we are to question where is the beginning, as those who fixate on conception tend to do, it is hard to see any other stage as the beginning.

People can say it is not viable at that stage, but that is simply hind sight. An egg that is fertalized will become a zygote. That fact that many don't should have no more significants than saying that may zygotes terminate naturally. If viability is the marker of value then the zygote is not valuable yet either as most are not viable.

Either way it is very difficult to seriously come to the conclusion that conception is a special important stage, the creation of something important.

This can be seen by the fact that very few people actually care at all about a naturally terminated zygote that fails to implant.

recedite · 27-12-2010 8:34pm

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really relevant to my point. The question was what is the first cell or stage of the new life form.....
People can say it is not viable at that stage, but that is simply hind sight. .....
Either way it is very difficult to seriously come to the conclusion that conception is a special important stage, the creation of something important.

This can be seen by the fact that very few people actually care at all about a naturally terminated zygote that fails to implant.

The earliest point at which any living person contained their full genetic potential was at the moment of conception. Therefore there are valid scientific reasons for considering that point special, if a line in the sand is to be drawn.
There is actually some controversy about "the morning after pill", which prevents implantation of the zygote, with many people considering it to be a type of abortion.

Another moral dilemma for those who would place no value on the life of a late term foetus; How would you compare the value of a prematurely born severely handicapped infant, only slightly more developed than the foetus, but with the potential for a full life lessened?

Morbert · 27-12-2010 8:44pm

recedite wrote: »

The earliest point at which any living person contained their full genetic potential was at the moment of conception. Therefore there are valid scientific reasons for considering that point special, if a line in the sand is to be drawn.
There is actually some controversy about "the morning after pill", which prevents implantation of the zygote, with many people considering it to be a type of abortion.

It is scientifically special. But it does not affect the ethical stances of many people. Many people (myself included) do not hinge human rights on DNA. Instead, they hinge it on some other criteria, like the existence of a human mind or brain.

Zombrex · 27-12-2010 8:58pm

recedite wrote: »

The earliest point at which any living person contained their full genetic potential was at the moment of conception. Therefore there are valid scientific reasons for considering that point special, if a line in the sand is to be drawn.

There are valid reasons for considering lots of points scientifically special, in that something significant happens at that point. Others from conception include implantation in the womb.

But again this isn't relevant to my point, which is the question of where does the life form start. Again, the FIRST cell of you or me or anyone is the egg cell in the mother.

If you are thinking that ain't that special, I agree with you. But that highlights the flaw in the anti-abortion argument.

recedite wrote: »

There is actually some controversy about "the morning after pill", which prevents implantation of the zygote, with many people considering it to be a type of abortion.

I can do, or it can simply stop the fertilization. Either way the egg cell dies.

recedite wrote: »

Another moral dilemma for those who would place no value on the life of a late term foetus; How would you compare the value of a prematurely born severely handicapped infant, only slightly more developed than the foetus, but with the potential for a full life lessened?

Agreed, I'm opposed to late term abortion (as most countries that allow abortion are), as I think "birth", while scientifically special

is of little significance in determining if the fetus has rights or not. As you say the child is nearly identical to 5 days before birth as it is 5 days after birth.

recedite · 29-12-2010 1:32pm

Wicknight wrote: »

But again this isn't relevant to my point, which is the question of where does the life form start. Again, the FIRST cell of you or me or anyone is the egg cell in the mother.

At the risk of being pedantic, I disagree. The egg was 100% your mother. The sperm was 100% your father. Your own blueprint was only created or determined after the two fused.

pH · 29-12-2010 1:55pm

recedite wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, I disagree. The egg was 100% your mother. The sperm was 100% your father. Your own blueprint was only created or determined after the two fused.

Well if we're going to be pedantic then the egg is 50% your mother's mother, 50% your mother's father, the sperm 50% your father's mother and 50% your father's father.

Meiosis is a special type of cell division necessary for sexual reproduction. In animals, meiosis produces gametes like sperm and egg cells, while in other organisms like fungi it generates spores. In many organisms, including humans, meiosis begins with one cell containing two copies of each chromosome—one from the organism's mother and one from its father—and produces four gamete cells containing one copy of each chromosome. Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically distinct from either parent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis

cavedave · 29-12-2010 2:00pm

pH that is ignoring mitochondrial DNA which almost entirely come from your mother.

Zombrex · 29-12-2010 2:44pm

recedite wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, I disagree. The egg was 100% your mother. The sperm was 100% your father. Your own blueprint was only created or determined after the two fused.

Again your "blueprint" is irrelevant to the point.

In an asexual reproduction the child's DNA is identifical (bar mutation) from the parents. But you would never say that the offspring is "100%" the parent.

For example Bonnethead sharks can reproduce asexually. Would you say then that these two sharks (mother and daughter) are the same organism because they have identifical DNA, that the shark in the foreground is an extension of the mother's body?

recedite · 30-12-2010 12:51am

Its a good point. I'd say the relationship between the two sharks is equivalent to that of two human clones, or identical twins.
In the case of human twins, I would still say that they both began their existence together at the time of conception, before splitting, because prior to that the egg was alive, but existed as a different entity.

In the case of a clone, it would be more difficult to say. A clone would be created by introducing the contents of the nucleus from a cell of the original person into a random enucleated egg cell. This would be the equivalent of natural conception. The random egg cell still provides its own input; the mitochondrial DNA.

In the case of the sharks, I don't know when exactly the "daughter" originated.
Can we agree that a new life does not start at conception, or generally at any particular time; but life is passed down through the generations?

keppler · 11-01-2011 1:35pm

I love boots (the shop and the other kind!)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0111/1224287234949.html

MrPudding · 11-01-2011 2:07pm

The only negative form the article...

Dr Mel Bates wrote:

The moment you increase access to any service, you increase demand for it...

Or possibly the increased access simply address a problem of latent demand...

I think general practice is the best place for this...

Not when some of your colleagues refuse to supply it based on their own fairytale beliefs...

MrP

keppler · 11-01-2011 2:44pm

MrPudding wrote: »

The only negative form the article...

Or possibly the increased access simply address a problem of latent demand...

Not when some of your colleagues refuse to supply it based on their own fairytale beliefs...

MrP

100% agreed........also especially considering that alot of women would be looking for the medication on a sunday morning, when most doctors surgeries are closed making it even more unnecessarily harsher on said women to get a prescription............this decision could only serve to remove that nightmare situation. Not to mention the removal of unneccesary financial burden on said women (which is something maybe Dr Bates is more worried about)

antiskeptic · 11-01-2011 2:56pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Or possibly the increased access simply address a problem of latent demand...

Are we to suppose that there's a whole bunch of people who'd not bother with something as significant as the morning after pill because access was restricted to something so reasonably available as a GP?

That doc made the point on Moaning Ireland this morning that the increased access would result in people using the morning after as their main form of contraception. An unwelcome development to her mind - and not for religious reasons.

That said, the distinct undertow from both the Boots lady and the defending doc seemed to be .. money. Not surprising from Boots and probably not surprising from the doc. My wifes GP says she's 50% down on business due to the downturn.

Zombrex · 11-01-2011 3:31pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we to suppose that there's a whole bunch of people who'd not bother with something as significant as the morning after pill because access was restricted to something so reasonably available as a GP?

I would say yes. Getting a GP appointment may seem trivial but speaking from experience (as someone with a long term health issue nothing to do with the MAP) getting a GP appointment when you actually want one can be hassle and difficulty. A lot more difficult that simply popping into Boots.

That is before you get to the issues of either the GP refusing to give out the MAP for ethical reasons, or the patient being to embarrassed to go to her GP particularly if it is a family GP, or simply the GP not being open when you want to go.

All of these factors increase the odds that a person will just go "Ah I'm sure it will be fine"

antiskeptic wrote: »

That doc made the point on Moaning Ireland this morning that the increased access would result in people using the morning after as their main form of contraception. An unwelcome development to her mind - and not for religious reasons.

There is very little evidence that actually happens though, it seems more of a scare story than anything else.

Research in the UK show that only 7% of surveyed women had used the morning after pill in the previous 12 months from the point of the survey, and only 0.5 had used the pill in the years before that (ie 6.5% of the women that had used the MAP had only used it once).

So we are talking about a tiny percentage of women who regularly use the morning after pill, with "regularly" being loosely defined as simply more than once.

The most common reason given for the use of the MAP (at 36%) was condom failure. Only 20% said they used the MAP because they hadn't used a condom or other contraception, showing that most people who take the MAP use it as an addition to traditional contraception methods.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=6988

keppler · 11-01-2011 3:37pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we to suppose that there's a whole bunch of people who'd not bother with something as significant as the morning after pill because access was restricted to something so reasonably available as a GP?

That doc made the point on Moaning Ireland this morning that the increased access would result in people using the morning after as their main form of contraception. An unwelcome development to her mind - and not for religious reasons.

That said, the distinct undertow from both the Boots lady and the defending doc seemed to be .. money. Not surprising from Boots and probably not surprising from the doc. My wifes GP says she's 50% down on business due to the downturn.

Nobody is suggesting that there is a "whole bunch of people" who'd rather go without e.c rather than face the docter! Where are you getting you're information from antisceptic?
What mr p was suggesting is that the decision would eliminate situations like this!
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html#ixzz0yJAN4Wx0

Also antisceptic are you suggesting that women in france, finland, norway, sweden and the uk are all using E.C as a primary form of contraception?
If you are seriously going to take that reasoning onboard then the only conclusion I can come to is that you think this is a bad decision for 'religous reasons' because the real evidence suggests otherwise

magicbastarder · 11-01-2011 3:39pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we to suppose that there's a whole bunch of people who'd not bother with something as significant as the morning after pill because access was restricted to something so reasonably available as a GP?

i suspect it might be more difficult than usual to get an appointment with your GP if it was a saturday or sunday morning (which i assume are the most common days for people to seek one), and you need to see one on a couple of hours' notice.

magicbastarder · 11-01-2011 4:01pm

i certainly didn't read that from what (s)he said; the point seemed that boots and GPs are hunting for or trying to hold on to business wherever they can.

keppler · 11-01-2011 4:46pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i certainly didn't read that from what (s)he said; the point seemed that boots and GPs are hunting for or trying to hold on to business wherever they can.

yeah completey misunderstood what s/he meant in the final paragragh

At any rate I think that financial gain/loss is a poor argument to apply to this decision.......medication doesnt exist to supply a GP with an income and using this reasoning to me, only serves to draw the argument away from the real issue at hand

aceygray · 11-01-2011 5:47pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

That doc made the point on Moaning Ireland this morning that the increased access would result in people using the morning after as their main form of contraception. An unwelcome development to her mind - and not for religious reasons.

I really can't imagine many women choosing the MAP as their main form of contraception - it is less effective than the regular pill, and it's also much more expensive to use it regularly (around €14 a go for the morning after pill, vs €6 - €15 euro per month for the regular pill, depending on which one you're on).

Also the MAP can have some pretty unpleasant side effects. And even if some women do choose to use it regularly, that's no reason to deny free access to it for the majority of women who would use it responsibly.

ETA: just read the article, and it says boots will be charging €45 for the MAP, which makes it even less likely that women will use it regularly.

pH · 11-01-2011 6:19pm

aceygray wrote: »

ETA: just read the article, and it says boots will be charging €45 for the MAP, which makes it even less likely that women will use it regularly.

Still a lot cheaper (and easier) than sitting in your local GP half the day (normally work hours), paying 75 euro, then heading to the chemist and shelling out another 15 for a pill, when your medical problem is "I had consensual sex last night."

Memnoch · 11-01-2011 8:32pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Again your "blueprint" is irrelevant to the point.

In an asexual reproduction the child's DNA is identifical (bar mutation) from the parents. But you would never say that the offspring is "100%" the parent.

For example Bonnethead sharks can reproduce asexually. Would you say then that these two sharks (mother and daughter) are the same organism because they have identifical DNA, that the shark in the foreground is an extension of the mother's body?

How did a hammer evolve into a shark with a head like a hammer. This is clearly proof of god at work. I didn't evolve from a monkey. Where are the bats with giant testicles? Because if evolution worked then there should be bats with giant testicles because then they could out reproduce the bats with smaller testicles.

MrPudding · 11-01-2011 8:55pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we to suppose that there's a whole bunch of people who'd not bother with something as significant as the morning after pill because access was restricted to something so reasonably available as a GP?

I think it would be silly in the extreme to suppose that no one has ever given up, or simply decided it is too much hassle to get the MAP. I personally have been in the position a number of times and we decided not to bother as it was too much hassle. One of these occasion, at least, resulted in a little bundle of joy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That doc made the point on Moaning Ireland this morning that the increased access would result in people using the morning after as their main form of contraception. An unwelcome development to her mind - and not for religious reasons.

Do you really see very well off woman who have a reasonably healthy sex life using the MAP as their primary form of contraception? I say well off 'cos they would need to be if they wanted to use MAP as their main form of contraception. And clearly this ignores the fact that some of the side effects can be quite unpleasant and it does not give any protection from STI's. So, bacisally, anyone that would use the MAP as their main form of contraception is depriving a village of its idiot.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That said, the distinct undertow from both the Boots lady and the defending doc seemed to be .. money. Not surprising from Boots and probably not surprising from the doc. My wifes GP says she's 50% down on business due to the downturn.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care about the whys, I like the result.

MrP

recedite · 12-01-2011 12:19am

Memnoch wrote: »

How did a hammer evolve into a shark with a head like a hammer. This is clearly proof of god at work. I didn't evolve from a monkey. Where are the bats with giant testicles? Because if evolution worked then there should be bats with giant testicles because then they could out reproduce the bats with smaller testicles.

The hammer evolved into a shark so that it could swim after the fish prey and nail them.
Bats with giant testicles would suffer terrible injuries while flying through branches and thorny undergrowth.

aceygray · 12-01-2011 2:02am

pH wrote: »

Still a lot cheaper (and easier) than sitting in your local GP half the day (normally work hours), paying 75 euro, then heading to the chemist and shelling out another 15 for a pill, when your medical problem is "I had consensual sex last night."

Oh, I completely agree. I think it's great that boots are doing this, and really I see no reason why the MAP shouldn't be available without prescription in any pharmacy (with a consultation, of course). I was just making the point that, cost-wise, it would be ridiculous for a woman to use it as her primary form of contraception.

12-01-2011 10:38am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we to suppose that there's a whole bunch of people who'd not bother with something as significant as the morning after pill because access was restricted to something so reasonably available as a GP?

yes

That doc made the point on Moaning Ireland this morning that the increased access would result in people using the morning after as their main form of contraception. An unwelcome development to her mind - and not for religious reasons.

The MAP can cause serious side effects in many women, and the price I'm hearing quoted is 45 euro.
I doubt people are going to be stupid enough to do that. (and if they are, we should be glad they're taking contraception)

That said, the distinct undertow from both the Boots lady and the defending doc

Undertow

brilliant

Zombrex · 12-01-2011 10:54am

Memnoch wrote: »

How did a hammer evolve into a shark with a head like a hammer. This is clearly proof of god at work. I didn't evolve from a monkey. Where are the bats with giant testicles? Because if evolution worked then there should be bats with giant testicles because then they could out reproduce the bats with smaller testicles.

Touche :pac:

ECHR rules on abortion

Comments