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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Unfiltered

2456789

Comments

  • #52
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    For those who claim we don't know when life begins, then we should obviously err on the side of life. If we say we don't know if life begins at conception or not, then we must admit that it is possible that life begins at conception and that life is human and thus a person.

    I invite, as part of this discussion thread, all of you to go to www.abortionno.org and defend what you see there.

    Please do actually click on the link and view the presentations there. If you are at work, please do it later today. Then come back and let us discuss what we have seen and read.


  • #53
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    bquinn wrote: »
    .....
    92% eh?
    Thats quite a staggering statistic.
    Care to give a link to it?
    ALso in your eyes you have counseled murderers yeah? I wonder do you truly beleive that?
    ultravid wrote:
    For those who claim we don't know when life begins, then we should obviously err on the side of life. If we say we don't know if life begins at conception or not, then we must admit that it is possible that life begins at conception and that life is human and thus a person.

    I invite, as part of this discussion thread, all of you to go to www.abortionno.org and defend what you see there.

    Please do actually click on the link and view the presentations there. If you are at work, please do it later today. Then come back and let us discuss what we have seen and read.
    We know when life supposedly begins. You still ahvent answered my last post and have instead decided to pretty much repost a point youve made before.


  • #54
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    Virgil° wrote: »
    No one in pro-choice debates that human life starts at conception.....or earlier even(A sperm is human life at an earlier stage)
    What I debate is the "importance" of "human life". Why do you class "human" life as being so important? That you could become so enraged at the abortion of the unborn yet not bat an eyelid or care about the slaughter of animals on a massive scale. What is it that makes us more special than those creatures?

    I am discussing the massive slaughter of human life here and animal rights is another topic altogether. When, in your opinion, is human life worthy of being protected? Is it at some point before birth, at birth or at sometime after birth or never?


  • #55
    bquinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭bquinn


    Virgil° wrote: »
    Humans are easily inferior to a VAST amount of animals in a number of ways.
    I cant run as fast as a large cat, i cant see as accurately as a bird of prey, im not as strong or agile as a gorrila.But i still classify myself as more important.

    I beleive that i(and you), are superior to a snail because we're more intelligent.A gift bestowed upon us by our brain and the consciousness formed by it.
    Is there another way to differenciate ourselves from animals?The fact that something is "human life" or potentially human life doesnt hold great importance to me.
    Do you believe killing a body without a brain to be immoral?It is "Human life" after all no?

    You're going outside the realm of what's relevant. The constitution says all persons are guaranteed the right to life. Animals are obviously living creatures, not protected by the constitution. We are not discussing the importance of animal life, that's just a vain attempt to change the subject. If you want a religious discussion on levels of importance, that's a different thread. The constitution says all persons have the right to life. A unique human being begins at the moment of conception. (No, a sperm is not human, it only has 23 chromosomes and will never grow and develop...) From the moment of conception, until death that human being will continue to grow (yes as adults we are still growing, as we replace skin, bones, and other tissues...) and learn. The rate of learning varies through the stages, but brain activity actually begins by 2 weeks after conception.
    Why do you not care about protecting your fellow man?? I really want to know why it is so important to you to protect this 'freedom of abortion'? What makes this so important to you, that you would argue it on a forum?? I really want to know.


  • #56
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Pro-choicers, protecting womens right to choose,and attacking women who don't have abortions since 1782. Ridiculous comments guarantee ridiculous retorts


  • #57
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Ultravid wrote: »
    I am discussing the massive slaughter of human life here and animal rights is another topic altogether. When, in your opinion, is human life worthy of being protected? Is it at some point before birth, at birth or at sometime after birth or never?
    And i am trying to question why you value humans over animals?
    Ive already said when i value human life.
    But ill say it again.
    When our brain is developed or in a state of developing higher brain functions(responsible for the state that is personhood). Once this happens id err on the side of life aswell.
    Unfortunately this doesnt happen at the point of conception.
    You still havent answered my question though.
    Do you consider killing a human body without a brain to be immoral?After all it is human life.


  • #58
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Ultravid I wanted to address some points you made previously.
    Ultravid wrote: »
    If you reject science what do you base your opinion on?

    The moment egg and sperm unite, you have a new individual human being who begins to grow and develop at that moment. By 18-21 days the heart will begin to beat. By 6 wks, they will move on their own, and respond (draw away from) a needle if stuck during an amniocentesis. Solomen and Berg, as well as Curtis are leading college Biology texts. Both say conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. You can argue the rights of the person all you want, but facts are facts, human life begins at conception.

    Well it is a life cycle. So technically there is no beginning. Just like Mitosis has no beginning, wow never thought i could use that word in a relevant analogy. And if you think that human life begins at conception (which is absurd because that means a single cell is a human life, so what we are comprised of billions of human lives?) well you also think that nature is the biggest abortionist of all (god if you believe in god), after all many conceived eggs are actually aborted naturally by the women, this prevents alot of future miscarriages. Human life may begin when two gametes combine and become a single cell, that does not make that single cell a human.
    As regards the unborn, when he/she pulls away from the needle in pain as I described above, this is not opinion, it is observable scientific fact.

    Yes but that is only at far along stages.
    For those who claim we don't know when life begins, then we should obviously err on the side of life. If we say we don't know if life begins at conception or not, then we must admit that it is possible that life begins at conception and that life is human and thus a person.

    No I don't think it matters. I do not think it is important when life "begins" ( I mean beyond the first non replicating organic compounds becoming replicating, does it really begin? More continue) I think the more important questions are

    Does it feel pain and when?

    When is it alive, when can it think?

    And at these points we should deeply consider before we consider killing it. And even then there may be good reasons to abort.

    The mother may be in high probability of negatively affecting her own health. And as a result would leave behind a devastated partner and an motherless child/children.

    On a personal note, the doctors told my mother to abort me I was a health risk and she could have died. I think my mother should have aborted me, I would have been okay with it, I as her child and the child of a father and two brothers would rather have died than killed my mother. Did you ever think the fetus would prefer to be aborted?


  • #59
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    stakey wrote: »
    Do they scream 'ow' and cower in a corner of the womb as well?

    Your views here are very black and white and you've avoided all of that grey in between the two.

    I wouldn't question that basic life starts at conception but the choice to have an abortion is not as simple as you'd like to convey it as. People choose abortion for many reasons be it as a result of threats to the life of the mother (which i'd rate much more over that of a collection of cells) or due to circumstances such as rape or incest.

    Why do you think an abortion should happen because of rape or incest? Do you put the rapest life above the life of the child? I happen to be a result of a rape, and I am appalled by the fact that you believe that I should of been murdered because of who my father was.

    You call a fetus a bunch of cells, you do understand that we are all a bunch of cells so what is your point? The case of a mothers life in danger is a very rare case and most people will agree that in cases such as when the child is in the felopen tube something must be done because both patients are in danger of death.


  • #60
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Virgil° wrote: »
    Not until you acquire what it is that separates us and animals. But then you're not an unborn child are you?
    Humans are easily inferior to a VAST amount of animals in a number of ways.
    I cant run as fast as a large cat, i cant see as accurately as a bird of prey, im not as strong or agile as a gorrila.But i still classify myself as more important.

    I beleive that i(and you), are superior to a snail because we're more intelligent.A gift bestowed upon us by our brain and the consciousness formed by it.
    Is there another way to differenciate ourselves from animals?The fact that something is "human life" or potentially human life doesnt hold great importance to me.
    Do you believe killing a body without a brain to be immoral?It is "Human life" after all no?

    You do understand that an unborn child does have a brain right?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Unfiltered Abortion you say! I normally drink the filtered kind, what kinda affect will it have on my waist line if I switch?


  • #62
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    Many points have been made which need to be addressed. I must have lunch now then an appointment: I will be back later.

    In the meantime, I repost what bquinn said earlier for your consideration:
    What makes this so important to you, that you would argue it on a forum?? I really want to know.


  • #63
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Ultravid wrote: »
    then an appointment:

    Is the appointment with a clinic in England!


  • #64
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Also Ultravid do you by any chance eat meat?

    And I would assume you understand where I am going with this. Let us take a cow, a cow is billions (or is it millions) more cells than one or a few thousand human cells. It's cells are the same structure as our cells, and it shares - Sorry I can't find it, but I'm sure its 90%+ - of the same DNA as us. A cow thinks (at some primitive level) and a cow definitely feels and responds to pain and cruelty. I would assume you are a vegetarian. Because if killing a couple of cells (that just happen to have human DNA) effects you so much killing a whole live animal should present you with countless issues.


  • #65
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    nogac wrote: »
    You do understand that an unborn child does have a brain right?

    No it doesnt......not until a certain point after conception(6 weeks or so). At which stage afterwards(as ive said before) i would not agree with abortion.
    Please do try to read my posts before replying to them.


  • #66
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Virgil° wrote: »
    And i am trying to question why you value humans over animals?
    Ive already said when i value human life.
    But ill say it again.
    When our brain is developed or in a state of developing higher brain functions(responsible for the state that is personhood). Once this happens id err on the side of life aswell.
    Unfortunately this doesnt happen at the point of conception.
    You still havent answered my question though.
    Do you consider killing a human body without a brain to be immoral?After all it is human life.

    No is saying a human life value humans over animals, we are saying that just like we have laws against dismembering, having acid spilled on or having a hole drilled in the head and brains sucked out of a cat, dog, or any other animal should we not give these same rights to our own children.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    I've a question-interesting to see where this one goes. Do you see the difference between a person and a human? Badly phrased perhaps,but i've just had my coffee and i've to head to work. Human is what we are. Person is who we are. The cells inside a woman are neither a human,nor a person. Ps-i prefer protecting the rights of my fellow woman,instead of my fellow man. That bunch of cells is neither to me.


  • #68
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    nogac wrote: »
    No is saying a human life value humans over animals, we are saying that just like we have laws against dismembering, having acid spilled on or having a hole drilled in the head and brains sucked out of a cat, dog, or any other animal should we not give these same rights to our own children.

    What?:confused:


  • #69
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    nogac wrote: »
    You do understand that an unborn child does have a brain right?

    Wrong.... Only at certain stage in fetal development... So some unborn children have a brain...


  • #70
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    nogac wrote: »
    No is saying a human life value humans over animals, we are saying that just like we have laws against dismembering, having acid spilled on or having a hole drilled in the head and brains sucked out of a cat, dog, or any other animal should we not give these same rights to our own children.

    yes and we do give these rights to our children... As soon as they have a brain...


  • #71
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Virgil° wrote: »
    No it doesnt......not until a certain point after conception(6 weeks or so). At which stage afterwards(as ive said before) i would not agree with abortion.
    Please do try to read my posts before replying to them.

    Actually the brain begins to develop at the 3rd week most women are not even aware they are pregnant at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    yes and we do give these rights to our children... As soon as they have a brain...

    You mean at the 3rd week gestation? UHHMMM


  • #73
    stakey
    Registered Users Posts: 721 ✭✭✭stakey


    bquinn wrote: »
    A group in NY did a random, confidential survey of women on in NYC. Of those who had an abortion, 92% said they felt forced into it by someone else. SO whose right to choose is it?? If the woman did not want to choose it, the baby obviously did not choose it, then maybe it's the men who are choosing it so they can have their way without any consequences.

    92% eh? I'd like to see a link to that report and it'd be interesting to see what other choices were on the survey and who ran it.


  • #74
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    bquinn wrote: »
    but brain activity actually begins by 2 weeks after conception.

    So abortion before 2 weeks is okay then?


  • #75
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

    Again please at least TRY to read previous posts so were not going in circles.
    So you agree then that before the brain has begun formation its ok to abort?Be it whatever amount of weeks.


  • #76
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    nogac wrote: »
    You mean at the 3rd week gestation? UHHMMM

    Hmmm well then maybe not... Abortion laws are different for each country...

    But does the brain work properly? Is there a nervous system? Is the fetus thinking?


  • #77
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Nerin wrote: »
    I've a question-interesting to see where this one goes. Do you see the difference between a person and a human? Badly phrased perhaps,but i've just had my coffee and i've to head to work. Human is what we are. Person is who we are. The cells inside a woman are neither a human,nor a person. Ps-i prefer protecting the rights of my fellow woman,instead of my fellow man. That bunch of cells is neither to me.

    I have had five children I can guarantee you that all of them were human and therefor persons. These rights you say you are protecting for women at least two of the five of my human/person children were female, you are saying I could have aborted these women too. Very confusing, on whose side you are on since over half of aborted children are female.


  • #78
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Virgil° wrote: »
    http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

    Again please at least TRY to read previous posts so were not going in circles.
    So you agree then that before the brain has begun formation its ok to abort?Be it whatever amount of weeks.

    Thanks Virgil for answering my question before I even asked it....


  • #79
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    nogac wrote: »
    I have had five children I can guarantee you that all of them were human and therefor persons. These rights you say you are protecting for women at least two of the five of my human/person children were female, you are saying I could have aborted these women too. Very confusing, on whose side you are on since over half of aborted children are female.

    Why would you have needed to abort them? Didn't you think you could take care of them?

    Edit: all of them became persons and they were only fully "human" at a certain stage of the pregnancy at other stages they would have been identified with other words


  • #80
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    Hmmm well then maybe not... Abortion laws are different for each country...

    But does the brain work properly? Is there a nervous system? Is the fetus thinking?

    Why wouldn't it be working? The heart is beating the body is growing.


  • #81
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin


    Pro-choicers, protecting womens right to choose,and attacking women who don't have abortions since 1782. Ridiculous comments guarantee ridiculous retorts

    Protecting the right to choose ? Since when did that trumph the right to life?
    What are you talking about? The soonest I've seen anyone quote is 6 weeks

    after a few hours of mytosis the cells already 'know' where to go to form the spine etc.. how is that not intelligent ?
    Yes but that is only at far along stages.

    those stages are not 'far along' enough that people dont abort foetus' at that time or later, while most abortions happen before 18 weeks, and 18 week old foetus looks quite human to me.

    In addition abortion leads to eugenics, yer one in the UK stopes was a eugenicist and they are the biggest advocates of abortion.
    And I would assume you understand where I am going with this. Let us take a cow, a cow is billions (or is it millions) more cells than one or a few thousand human cells. It's cells are the same structure as our cells, and it shares - Sorry I can't find it, but I'm sure its 90%+ - of the same DNA as us. A cow thinks (at some primitive level) and a cow definitely feels and responds to pain and cruelty. I would assume you are a vegetarian. Because if killing a couple of cells (that just happen to have human DNA) effects you so much killing a whole live animal should present you with countless issues.

    A mushroom's DNA is 65% identical to a humans ? Should we not eat them either ? But we do. Do we do it because it's DNA is different ? If that is the case then we should eat black people aswell , Actually EVERYONE ELSE for that matter as their DNA is not totally 'human'. You cannot have 100% human DNA stricktly speaking. As most humans have differnt DNA


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    Why would you have needed to abort them? Didn't you think you could take care of them?

    I am saying why would any one have to abort these children, they are children. There is always someone who will take care of them. It is a sad time in america when abortion cost more than adoption.


  • #83
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    nogac wrote: »
    I have had five children I can guarantee you that all of them were human and therefor persons. These rights you say you are protecting for women at least two of the five of my human/person children were female, you are saying I could have aborted these women too. Very confusing, on whose side you are on since over half of aborted children are female.

    you can religiously,philosophically and scientifically prove that each of the 5 were human from the very beginning? Bravo, thats a first is it not? You could have gone to britain to abort them,yes,if you were thus inclined.


  • #84
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    Hmmm well then maybe not... Abortion laws are different for each country...

    But does the brain work properly? Is there a nervous system? Is the fetus thinking?

    Who are you to decide who lives or dies based on your own criteria? That would make you a law onto yourself. That scares me, I'll be honest.
    So many holes - where to start. As above, life does not "start" at conception. We are arguing whether individual personhood starts at conception. Let's not confuse the two.
    Obviously any human cells are human. Nobody is suggesting they are forming from a goat.
    Finally, living human cells do not equate to a person. You have a very, very long way to go to trying to prove that one. (I'll give you a hint: my toenails have human dna and presumably living cells, but they're not a person.)

    To bluewolf:

    A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:


    1. Living things are highly organized.
    2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
    3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
    4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
    5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

    According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
    Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

    Also:
    People choose abortion for many reasons be it as a result of threats to the life of the mother (which i'd rate much more over that of a collection of cells) or due to circumstances such as rape or incest.

    Read "Victims and Victors". It's a book on Victims of rape and incest. The most interesting thing is that this is the first documented study on victims of rape and incest who conceived, and an overwhelming majority preferred to continue with the pregnancy. And some of those who didn't were actually pressured into killing their babies by "well-intended" families and friends.

    It seems those who actually suffered this heinous crimes are more compassionate than the pro-choice lobby who claim to speak for them. These victims are also very angry that the pro-choice people act as though they speak for the victims when they don't.



    Those who think abortion is okay:


    Q. Would you have no qualms cutting your 1 year old child into pieces? If not, what is so wrong to do that to 1 year old and yet permissible to do this to a person a few weeks old? Why does a few months difference in lifespan make a difference?

    But if this is the case, then it would seem that when times get tough it is okay to dispose of the younger ones in my family to alleviate any financial hardships.

    On the argument of preserving the life of a mother, I pose this scenario. A madman is on a rampage ands find mother and child huddled in a corner in fear. The madman says that if the mother does not let him kill her child, he will have to kill her (the mother). Would a decent mother opt to allow the lunatic to kill her child to save herself?


  • #85
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    nogac wrote: »
    Why wouldn't it be working? The heart is beating the body is growing.
    Should I have said working at full capacity? In terms of feelings, pain, memory, emotions.


  • #86
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    Why would you have needed to abort them? Didn't you think you could take care of them?

    Edit: all of them became persons and they were only fully "human" at a certain stage of the pregnancy at other stages they would have been identified with other words
    These other words you speak of, what are they exactly?


  • #87
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    Why would you have needed to abort them? Didn't you think you could take care of them?

    Edit: all of them became persons and they were only fully "human" at a certain stage of the pregnancy at other stages they would have been identified with other words
    If it isnt bloody there then how could it possibly be working?
    Your edit makes no sense,is a human "fully human" without a brain?
    Im kinda half considering stepping out of this thread till either Zulu or Vimes come into it.
    So far weve had people stating that they knew their children were humans in their wombs from no other source of information than their own conviction it seems.And i dont feel like picking holes in that sort of emotional twaddle.
    clair robinson wrote:
    Thanks Virgil for answering my question before I even asked it....
    No problem.:cool:


  • #88
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Nerin wrote: »
    you can religiously,philosophically and scientifically prove that each of the 5 were human from the very beginning? Bravo, thats a first is it not? You could have gone to britain to abort them,yes,if you were thus inclined.

    What does religion have to do with anything? I said I have had five children. I miscarried three of them. My first I held she was only 9 weeks old and she sure did look human, she had ten fingers and ten toes and she was perfect. Now that is a fact. And I suppose I could have gone just about anywhere to abort them because the right to choose crowd has lied to the great majority of us that these little ones are a bunch of cells and thus not human/persons. It took me having to hold my little one to actually see for myself that they are.


  • #89
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    Why would you have needed to abort them? Didn't you think you could take care of them?

    Edit: all of them became persons and they were only fully "human" at a certain stage of the pregnancy at other stages they would have been identified with other words
    Is that a fact? It reads like one... Source please?


  • #90
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    nogac wrote: »
    . It took me having to hold my little one to actually see for myself that they are.
    Of course it did. Thats what we call emotion. Not logic im afraid.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Phototoxin wrote: »
    Protecting the right to choose ? Since when did that trumph the right to life?



    after a few hours of mytosis the cells already 'know' where to go to form the spine etc.. how is that not intelligent ?

    yea thats really pushing it (the term intelligence), mitosis btw, because every single cell undergoes mitosis, from bacteria through fungi through to higher order animals, and we have no problem eating mushrooms...mmmmm mushrooms...
    A mushroom's DNA is 65% identical to a humans ? Should we not eat them either ? But we do. Do we do it because it's DNA is different ? If that is the case then we should eat black people aswell , Actually EVERYONE ELSE for that matter as their DNA is not totally 'human'. You cannot have 100% human DNA stricktly speaking. As most humans have differnt DNA
    Yes but only minutely different DNA. And some people do infact eat other people, it's called canabalism. But in civilised socities we do not canabalise. And in the future I'm sure we will all be vegaterians, it's just the way of future civilisations to be more empathetic....


  • #92
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Virgil° wrote: »
    If it isnt bloody there then how could it possibly be working?
    Your edit makes no sense,is a human "fully human" without a brain?
    Im kinda half considering stepping out of this thread till either Zulu or Vimes come into it.
    So far weve had people stating that they knew their children were humans in their wombs from no other source of information than their own conviction it seems.And i dont feel like picking holes in that sort of emotional twaddle.

    No problem.:cool:

    No isn't it called something else like a zygote or a blatocyst or some other word?


  • #93
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    Should I have said working at full capacity? In terms of feelings, pain, memory, emotions.

    By the sixth week the brain stem is fully functional thus being able to feel pain. But I question the feeling pain point. I have a cousin who was in a horrible car accident a few years back and can no longer feel pain. Other than that and also not having the sense of smell she is perfectly fine. So this pain thing should be thrown out.


  • #94
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Virgil° wrote: »
    Of course it did. Thats what we call emotion. Not logic im afraid.

    What? You are saying that even if they look human they are not human? So please tell me what was she?


  • #95
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    No isn't it called something else like a zygote or a blatocyst or some other word?

    Makes sense to me.That way we wont go confusing embryos with the humans we see walking about their daily lives every day wont we? Most of us anyway.


  • #96
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Ultravid wrote: »
    Is that a fact? It reads like one... Source please?

    Hmm I thought I read it in my bio text book... It doesn't cover human life cycle... Sorry I'm in botany so all this is really a don't really need to know subject for me...


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Clair Robinson wrote: »
    No isn't it called something else like a zygote or a blatocyst or some other word?

    There are different names for all kinds of stages of life they are there for us to classify and understand those stages. Zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, youth, pre-teen, teenager, young adult, adult, middle age, elderly.


  • #98
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    nogac wrote: »
    What? You are saying that even if they look human they are not human? So please tell me what was she?
    Yes something that looks human is not inherently human. Thats kinda common sense.
    When it was an "embryo" without a brain it was human cells but not a person. I dont agree with abortion once the brain has formed or is in the process of forming.


  • #99
    Clair Robinson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭Clair Robinson


    Virgil° wrote: »
    Makes sense to me.That way we wont go confusing embryos with the humans we see walking about their daily lives every day wont we? Most of us anyway.
    Yea totaly, that does annoy me about science. autosome and sex chromosome... really did we really have to go there couldn't we just have said chromosomes and sex cromosomes... no.... do you know what an autosome is A CHROMOSOME THAT IS NOT A SEX CHROMOSOME..... =.=

    But i still love science, and i understand why we need all the names, so we are not confused...


  • #100
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin


    So now we're killing humans but not people ?

    Abortions still occur when there is a brain.

    Also if a person is brain dead in a coma then according to you they are dead. So how come they aren't ?


  • #101
    nogac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭nogac


    Virgil° wrote: »
    Yes something that looks human is not inherently human. Thats kinda common sense.
    When it was an "embryo" without a brain it was human cells but not a person. I dont agree with abortion once the brain has formed or is in the process of forming.

    You do understand that there are people who are born without a brain and they are still called people.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement