|
YES!
May 27, 2018 23:41:04 GMT
Post by clusium on May 27, 2018 23:41:04 GMT
Furt goz There’s no such thing as a “potential human’ ffs. A human is a human. Biologically we’re humans from the moment we’re conceived. As the saying goes, there is no “potential human”, just a human being with potential. Please! . A fetus is a sentient human being. It feels pain, has emotions, experiences fear. So WTF are you talking about Anthropomorphism?! I guess, Cody that you neither read not understood my views on the foetus having a sliding scale of sentience. No, a foetus in the early weeks in NOT a human and not a person...it is indeed a potential human and person, gradually developing and becoming so over time. This, as I pointed out before, is the whole point of difference in our views. I have biology and science on my side and you have your religious belief. Furthermore you are attributing qualities to an early clump of cells that are biologically impossible until a certain level of development is achieved. Life Begins At Fertization
When Life Begins
A Scientific View Of When Life Begins
|
|
|
Post by THawk on May 27, 2018 23:49:34 GMT
I'll just say that this thread is good evidence for what is always, always, always the central driving factor of the pro-abortion side - how much they hate religion and the church. Women's health etc. etc they'll mention it, but then they can't go two sentences before saying how glad they are the church's side lost. And of course they'll completely ignore that other mainstream churches in Ireland actually did not side with the pro-life crowd.
I just pray they don't find out that the Catholic church under Pope Francis is very pro-environment, or they'll find a way to turn against that too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 27, 2018 23:58:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2018 23:58:10 GMT
I'll just say that this thread is good evidence for what is always, always, always the central driving factor of the pro-abortion side - how much they hate religion and the church. And I'll just say that you're completely wrong, as usual, and this thread shows that.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 0:46:13 GMT
Post by Cody™ on May 28, 2018 0:46:13 GMT
goz Yes, it IS a human. Just at a different stage of its development. No, you do not because science has not categorically clarified or determined this. One thing is for sure though, on this issue, I have morality on my side. Yeah you can call that thing with eyes, eye lids, brows, fingers and toes, kidneys, brainwaves and heartbeat just a clump of cells. I’ll call it what it actually is..a human being. I mean for heavens sake it has more than 90% of the anatomic structures present in adults by the end of week 10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 1:25:25 GMT
It's always fun watching people claim that arbitrary subjective opinions are objective facts.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 1:37:02 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 1:37:02 GMT
It's always fun watching people claim that arbitrary subjective opinions are objective facts. Then I know what to get you for your birthday, a mirror!
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 1:38:30 GMT
Post by goz on May 28, 2018 1:38:30 GMT
FurtI guess, Cody that you neither read not understood my views on the foetus having a sliding scale of sentience. No, a foetus in the early weeks in NOT a human and not a person...it is indeed a potential human and person, gradually developing and becoming so over time. This, as I pointed out before, is the whole point of difference in our views. I have biology and science on my side and you have your religious belief. Furthermore you are attributing qualities to an early clump of cells that are biologically impossible until a certain level of development is achieved. Life Begins At Fertization
When Life Begins
A Scientific View Of When Life BeginsWhat is your point? No-one is disputing that 'life' begins at conception, HOWEVER it is only a potential life because it does not have the necessary development to be sentient, nor to exist on its own. From your own link: THIS is the whole point so I am glad that we agree.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 1:43:58 GMT
Post by goz on May 28, 2018 1:43:58 GMT
goz Yes, it IS a human. Just at a different stage of its development. No, you do not because science has not categorically clarified or determined this. One thing is for sure though, on this issue, I have morality on my side. Yeah you can call that thing with eyes, eye lids, brows, fingers and toes, kidneys, brainwaves and heartbeat just a clump of cells. I’ll call it what it actually is..a human being. I mean for heavens sake it has more than 90% of the anatomic structures present in adults by the end of week 10. No, it is not a human yet, and by clump of cell I mean literally as a clump of cells like at cell division stage. YOU are claiming this as a person. As I said the rest is a sliding scale with potential to be a person when it can be sentient AND survive on its own. If you read my previous posts you would know this. As Clusium and I decided it is a living organism butt not yet a person and is a potential human. From her link not mine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 1:52:17 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 1:52:17 GMT
It's always fun watching people claim that arbitrary subjective opinions are objective facts. Then I know what to get you for your birthday, a mirror! Because I'd be able to angle it towards you? That would make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 2:05:44 GMT
goz Yes, it IS a human. Just at a different stage of its development. No, you do not because science has not categorically clarified or determined this. One thing is for sure though, on this issue, I have morality on my side. Yeah you can call that thing with eyes, eye lids, brows, fingers and toes, kidneys, brainwaves and heartbeat just a clump of cells. I’ll call it what it actually is..a human being. I mean for heavens sake it has more than 90% of the anatomic structures present in adults by the end of week 10. No, it is not a human yet, and by clump of cell I mean literally as a clump of cells like at cell division stage. YOU are claiming this as a person. As I said the rest is a sliding scale with potential to be a person when it can be sentient AND survive on its own. If you read my previous posts you would know this. As Clusium and I decided it is a living organism butt not yet a person and is a potential human. From her link not mine. Here is an irony, the atheists here who seem absolutely certain that everything a person thinks, says or does is determined by their DNA, enzymes, and chemical balances in specific reaction to the outside world. without any free will or soul and that consciousness otherwise is an illusion. How do those atheists reconcile that with abortion? Now you might ask me, if I believe there is more to a person than enzymes and DNA when do I believe that is present in human development? Why don't I allow people to assume it's not present for a long time after conception? The reason is that people from all walks of life; religious, scientific, both, and neither in many cultures believe that a person exists even before conception. They believe that the "ruling part," as Marcus Aurelius would put it, is present at conception because of the dependence it has on that body. Most importantly however is the fact that it is wise to be cautious. When in doubt err on the side of caution. If there is a good chance people are in a building who shouldn't be killed, then you don't blow up that building even when you are not absolutely certain they are even in it.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 2:54:48 GMT
Post by clusium on May 28, 2018 2:54:48 GMT
What is your point? No-one is disputing that 'life' begins at conception, HOWEVER it is only a potential life because it does not have the necessary development to be sentient, nor to exist on its own. From your own link: THIS is the whole point so I am glad that we agree. If nobody is disputing that life begins at conception, then why are so many people for abortion?!?! To terminate a life is to commit murder.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on May 28, 2018 8:13:47 GMT
If nobody is disputing that life begins at conception, then why are so many people for abortion?!?! To terminate a life is to commit murder. Nobody is disputing that egg cells, sperm cells, zygotes etc are alive and human, any scientist will tell you that life began about 3 billion years ago and we're on a continuum. When an individual Human life begins is somewhat trickier and open to interpretation. In this country we go by when a foetus is viable outside the womb which is why abortion is legal up to about 24 weeks, this limit is set by politicians who are informed by the medical council. This limit is supported by the overwhelming majority of people here, in Ireland it seems about 12 weeks will be the limit. You should probably look up the meaning of the word murder before you use it. Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is going to be legal in Ireland so it's not murder, you may think it's unethical but fortunately you're in a small and dwindling minority. I don't know if you have children but I do and I would never take choice away from other women. Children are a blessing, not a punishment for failed contraception, chaotic lifestyles or sexual assault. In fact this probably won't make much difference to the abortion rate in Ireland it just means thousands of Irish women won't have to cross over to Britain to pay for a termination - they're not eligible for NHS treatment like we are.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 8:35:54 GMT
Post by phludowin on May 28, 2018 8:35:54 GMT
Phludowin said it better butt I will just reinforce that it is neither, except in the mind of Christians who use this concept to add weight to an argument that is short on logic already. 'Innocent little children and foetuses' gets the emotions going and I wish hypocritical Catholic priests and their supporters had taken a little more notice of the concept. Correct. To clarify: That "innocence" should only be applied to entities that can also be guilty is my opinion. If we assume that anything that is not guilty is innocent, then, technically, all fetuses, animals, rocks, cars or guns are innocent. No matter how many people they kill. But when anti-choicers talk of "innocent" fetuses or babies, they use the meaning of innocence applied to persons. This is an attempt to manipulate emotions, and therefore should not be done in a rational, honest political debate. At least that's my opinion. Another thing: Some animal right activists also call animals "innocent", in order to manipulate people to adopt a vegan lifestyle. It's just as emotionally dishonest as anti-choicer rhetoric; but it helps expose the hypocrisy of anti-choicers who cry crocodile tears over aborted fetuses, but aren't even vegetarians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 11:33:59 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 11:33:59 GMT
If Ireland stopped caring about religion a long time ago, abortion wouldn't still be illegal in 2018. No organism is deprived of "enjoying the pleasures of life" by an abortion (well, maybe the father if he wanted the child to be born, I suppose). Aborting the foetus ensures that it will never need the pleasures of life and thus can never be deprived of them. Not entirely surprising that you turned out to be a religious fanatic, I have to say. Because you can only oppose abortion for religious reasons right? As an Irish person this referendum has been everywhere and it was impossible to escape for the last two or three weeks. Not once did I ever hear someone who was pro-life make a religious argument against abortion. "Not entirely surprising that you turned out to be a religious fanatic, I have to say." lol what? For all you know I am an atheist. " No organism is deprived of "enjoying the pleasures of life" by an abortion (well, maybe the father if he wanted the child to be born, I suppose). Aborting the foetus ensures that it will never need the pleasures of life and thus can never be deprived of them." Need the pleasures of life for what? The 'pro-life' side has been avoiding bringing religion into it explicitly, in order to not make it appear as a clear cut case of church interference with state. The "sanctity of life" is religious, by definition, because sacred is a religious term and they believe in ensoulment of the foetus and that human life is of divine provenance. From what I remember, you were peddling the old "the universe is god" line. But even if you consider yourself an 'atheist', you're a religious joke. The foetus does not have any desires or interests invested in life and neither knows nor cares about being aborted, and therefore loses nothing when being aborted (from its perspective).
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 11:49:23 GMT
Post by Lugh on May 28, 2018 11:49:23 GMT
Because you can only oppose abortion for religious reasons right? As an Irish person this referendum has been everywhere and it was impossible to escape for the last two or three weeks. Not once did I ever hear someone who was pro-life make a religious argument against abortion. "Not entirely surprising that you turned out to be a religious fanatic, I have to say." lol what? For all you know I am an atheist. " No organism is deprived of "enjoying the pleasures of life" by an abortion (well, maybe the father if he wanted the child to be born, I suppose). Aborting the foetus ensures that it will never need the pleasures of life and thus can never be deprived of them." Need the pleasures of life for what? The 'pro-life' side has been avoiding bringing religion into it explicitly, in order to not make it appear as a clear cut case of church interference with state. The "sanctity of life" is religious, by definition, because sacred is a religious term and they believe in ensoulment of the foetus and that human life is of divine provenance. From what I remember, you were peddling the old "the universe is god" line. But even if you consider yourself an 'atheist', you're a religious joke. The foetus does not have any desires or interests invested in life and neither knows nor cares about being aborted, and therefore loses nothing when being aborted (from its perspective). Any evidence for that conspiracy theory? "The foetus does not have any desires or interests invested in life and neither knows nor cares about being aborted, and therefore loses nothing when being aborted (from its perspective)." Why does that matter?
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 12:31:47 GMT
Post by faustus5 on May 28, 2018 12:31:47 GMT
Here is an irony, the atheists here who seem absolutely certain that everything a person thinks, says or does is determined by their DNA, enzymes, and chemical balances in specific reaction to the outside world. without any free will or soul and that consciousness otherwise is an illusion. I know of only one or two people who post in this forum who think free will is an illusion, and no one who thinks consciousness is an illusion. So basically you pulled this characterization out of your ignorant ass. They may occasionally say this, but their behavior proves that this is just empty posturing and not their true belief. Anyone who truly believed that full personhood began at conception would consistently and without hesitation hold funerals and fill out death certificates for miscarriages, along all the other behaviors they reserve for human beings they regard as persons at death. They don't.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 13:30:21 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 13:30:21 GMT
Thus the atheists here who seem absolutely certain Consciousness of free will. One pit or another. Whom would you invite? What would you remember about the life lost?
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 13:41:27 GMT
Post by faustus5 on May 28, 2018 13:41:27 GMT
Thus the atheists here who seem absolutely certain Consciousness of free will. One pit or another. Whom would you invite? What would you remember about the life lost? Every single response you've made here is a senseless non sequitur. It's as if you're on drugs or something and can't follow the simplest of conversations. Or maybe (this seems more likely) you aren't taking the meds that were prescribed to you.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 14:00:53 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 14:00:53 GMT
Thus the atheists here who seem absolutely certain ... ... Consciousness of free will ... ... One pit or another ... ... Whom would you invite? What would you remember about the life lost? Every single response you've made here is a senseless non sequitur. It's as if you're on drugs or something and can't follow the simplest of conversations. Or maybe (this seems more likely) you aren't taking the meds that were prescribed to you. Dunning Kruger
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 14:26:02 GMT
Post by faustus5 on May 28, 2018 14:26:02 GMT
You are the board's most obvious representative of this phenomenon and have been for years--the irony will of course be lost on you.
|
|