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

abortion

18910111214»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,666 ✭✭✭Imposter


    This seems like it might be relevant. It's a post from Corinthian from about 6 months back:

    Linkee

    If nothing else I think it sums up what some are trying to say here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭D!ve^Bomb!


    Originally posted by Imposter
    This seems like it might be relevant. It's a post from The Corinthian from about 6 months back:

    Linkee

    If nothing else I think it sums up what some are trying to say here.

    indeed it does, how the hell did ya remember that??


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Originally posted by newband
    well as i said before, the majority of the country voted against abortion

    I don't accept this. I don't know if you remember the referendum but it was not a simple yes or no. I am strongly pro choice but because of the way it was worded I felt I had to vote "against" it. I cannot remember the details exactly but I am sure someone can. I personally know a lot of people who are pro choice but had to vote the same way in the referendum.

    It would be interesting to see the result of a straight up vote and not a stupid referendum that is worded in such a way as to be almost meaningless.

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,304 ✭✭✭✭koneko


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there lots of complaining about the last referendum that it was held on a really awkward day like a wednesday, ensuring a lot of the younger population and students couldn't make it to the polling stations?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Originally posted by newband
    now if it was just one scientist who was statin these things then i would accept that it may not be fact, but there are MULTIPLE scientists who believe wot has been quoted, and i honestly dont believe that all of these scientists are foggin their own opinions off as fact, it goes against the nature of being a scientist in the first place... just because we cant find the actuall documentation of the tests etc etc means nothin,,, even if we did have em, we probably wouldn't have a clue at wot it says anyway
    So because everybody's saying it, and we mightn't understand it anyway, then it's ok? Right....
    I think I have 3 or 4 scientist friends here who'll agree with me. Include me, and that makes 5 "scientists" who doubt their facts without evidence. How many more do we need?

    I refer once again to the case of 15th Century Science -v- 15th Century explorers. Most scientists believed the earth was flat. Some didn't, despite the overwhelingly logical reasoning behind it. Nice and simple. Now, I'm not going to extremes, and comparing today's scientists to 15th century scientists (a very different, losed-minded breed), but just making the point that just because everybody's doing it, or everybody's saying it, that doesn't automatically make it right. They may be right. I don't think they're wrong, I just disregard their 'facts' when they don't provide any evidence. I think that's fair. As amp says, most of the scientists you've quoted have religious, ideal, or organisational connections to "pro-life" groups. Even if they did produce results, how are you to know that they're fair and untainted? For hundreds of years, scientists have denied their results and claimed the opposite, even when it's staring them in the face.

    Corinthian's post sums up perfectly what I'm trying to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭D!ve^Bomb!


    Originally posted by seamus
    So because everybody's saying it, and we mightn't understand it anyway, then it's ok? Right....
    I think I have 3 or 4 scientist friends here who'll agree with me. Include me, and that makes 5 "scientists" who doubt their facts without evidence. How many more do we need?

    again, where are all the articles by the scientists that believe this article is incorrect, provide links to anything that contradicts wot i have posted by this source. ANYTHING, it took me a matter of seconds to find this article and the other links i provided, surely there must be somethin out there that argues against it...
    Originally posted by seamus
    I refer once again to the case of 15th Century Science -v- 15th Century explorers. Most scientists believed the earth was flat. Some didn't, despite the overwhelingly logical reasoning behind it. Nice and simple.

    as i already said, logic doesn't always come into it... and again, where are all the scientists that dont believe it, links please
    Originally posted by seamus
    just because everybody's doing it, or everybody's saying it, that doesn't automatically make it right. They may be right. I don't think they're wrong, I just disregard their 'facts' when they don't provide any evidence.I think that's fair. As amp says, most of the scientists you've quoted have religious, ideal, or organisational connections to "pro-life" groups. Even if they did produce results, how are you to know that they're fair and untainted?

    there was only ONE scientist that amp was referring to actually.. and i just found that all that i have said regarding these links is that they're all in medical textbooks and encyclopedias etc etc,

    taken from this
    Medical Science Clearly Reveals: An Individual Human Life Begins at Conception.

    Medical Textbooks and Scientific Reference Works

    Dr. Bradley M. Patten's textbook, Human Embryology, states, " It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatazoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that...marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." 1

    Dr. Louis Fridhandler in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, refers to fertilization as "that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new individual." 2

    Time and Rand McNally's Atlas of the Body states, "In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, whch is the start of a new individual." 3

    Encyclopedia Britannica, says, "A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg." 4

    Prominent Scientists and Physicians:

    The late Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, and discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome said, "After fertilization has taken place and a new human being has come into being. It's no longer a matter of taste or opinion, and not a meta-physical condition, it is plain experimental evidence." 5

    Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." 6

    Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo clinic: "By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." 7

    Ashley Montague, Geneticist and Professor at Harvard and Rutgers, who is unsympathetic to the pro-life cause, said clear, "The basic fact is simple" Life begins not at birth, but conception." 8

    Dr. Landrum Shettles served twenty-seven years as attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. He was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility and is internationally famous for discovering male-and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of pre-born children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, "I oppose abortion...because I accept what is biologically manifest--that human life commences at the time of conception--and...because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic and humanitarian." 9[/B]


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,890 ✭✭✭embee


    Getting away from what newband is (continuously and tediously) saying (over and over), I wanted to mention again about Pro Life demonstrators and the pictures that they use on the street. I asked a while back in the debate if there was a Complaints Commission of any kind where people could lodge their grievances with the materials used on a public thoroughfare by these organisations.....

    It seems that what they are doing is in fact, illegal.
    Vagrancy Act, 1824.
    Section 4 of the act provides that every person wilfully exposing to view in any public place, any obscene print, picture or other indecent exhibition shall be guilty of an offence which carries a penalty of 3 months imprisonment on conviction.

    *taken from ageofconsent.com

    In truth, I would have no qualms whatsoever approaching a Garda on the street and explaining to him/her that there were pro-life lobbyists on the street, breaking the law. Whether or not it was taken any further would be out of my hands, but its interesting to know that their pictures ARE illegal, and not just, as I initially thought, completely offensive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Originally posted by newband
    .....some stuff....

    *smack* *smack* *smack*

    That's the sound of my head hitting off the keyboard.

    I'm going to make my point one final time.

    Just because loads of people say it, doesn't make it true. You cannot use other people's opinions to back up yours. Whether it comes from a tramp in the street or a respected scientist, an opinion is not valid without facts to back it up.

    I have not once said that your article is wrong, incorrect, or otherwise questioned the integrity of the scientists opinions. I'm simply trying to point out to you that they're opinions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭D!ve^Bomb!


    Originally posted by seamus
    *smack* *smack* *smack*

    That's the sound of my head hitting off the keyboard.

    I'm going to make my point one final time.

    Just because loads of people say it, doesn't make it true. You cannot use other people's opinions to back up yours. Whether it comes from a tramp in the street or a respected scientist, an opinion is not valid without facts to back it up.

    I have not once said that your article is wrong, incorrect, or otherwise questioned the integrity of the scientists opinions. I'm simply trying to point out to you that they're opinions.

    no, to YOU they're opinions because TO YOU the fact that you haven't read the proper documentation on the tests that prove them as facts then of course they cannot be facts at all... i keep postin all these different links because i HONESTLY DONT BELIEVE that there would be this many scientists all statin the same thing just because it is there opinions because i believe a scientist is a scientist because they believe in science and base their beliefs on SCIENTIFIC FACT, and the fact that you, nor anyone else has STILL yet to provide a link to just ONE scientist that believes otherwise makes me believe undoubtedly that it is fact..

    i am not usin other peoples opinions to back up mine, i am usin them to CONFIRM mine


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,978 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    There's so many replies to this thread - this is number 400! wow! - that it's difficult to keep track at times.

    Now I get newband's point but what are the opposition arguing? The scientific basis for distinguishing a bunch of cells from what we can scientifcally discern as being a human, right? So the abortion is OK because, from your perspective, the cells aren't classifiable as human bearing none of unique characteristics? They all come about later in gestation.

    Given all this... what do you think these bunch of cells will become? A rhino? A new breed of fungus? You can argue about imperical or empirical methodology until the bovines come home but surely you can hedge a bet as to the veracity of the gestation theory based on patterns and signs? You don't need a mathematical proof to know what happens when Daddy Sperm and Mummy Egg say hello...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Originally posted by ixoy
    There's so many replies to this thread - this is number 400! wow! - that it's difficult to keep track at times.

    Now I get newband's point but what are the opposition arguing? The scientific basis for distinguishing a bunch of cells from what we can scientifcally discern as being a human, right? So the abortion is OK because, from your perspective, the cells aren't classifiable as human bearing none of unique characteristics? They all come about later in gestation.

    Given all this... what do you think these bunch of cells will become? A rhino? A new breed of fungus? You can argue about imperical or empirical methodology until the bovines come home but surely you can hedge a bet as to the veracity of the gestation theory based on patterns and signs? You don't need a mathematical proof to know what happens when Daddy Sperm and Mummy Egg say hello...
    There's the viability argument, but I'm not going to get into that now. I haven't expressed my opinion on it, but The Corinthian's post (that was linked to) sums it up my opinion on the debating of abortion perfectly.
    Funnily enough, a trawl of the web reveals that most "pro-life" groups base their argument around the barbarism that is "tearing a child into pieces before sucking them into bag", and are much more emotive (read: use shock tactics), using opinions such as the child being a "human at conception", to try get their point across. Whereas "pro-choice" groups tend to focus on the mother, and her "rights as an individual", using opinions such as "the incidence of aborition is the same, whether legal or illegal, just the nature of the abortion is different".

    I would beleive that we would legalise abortion so that we might never use it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement