I don't now how anybody can look at abortion photos of dismembered, little arms, legs, crushed skulls and blood and not see that a human life has been brutally ended.
I never listened much to the pro-life arguments, it was the actual images of aborted babies that opened my eyes to what this is really about.
@TempusFugit101 The fetus is already dead by then, if you can even truly call it alive. So it's just flesh and bones being pulled out. Yes it's gruesome, but not the end of the world. Also, that's only one method of abortion. Not nearly all abortions go that way.
Of all the things that are embarassing about my country, the pro lifers take the whole pack of biscuits. Most irish women just order the abortion pills online nowadays anyhow, so you pro lifers can sleep safe in the knowledge that theres plenty of abortions going on here every day and there aint shit you can do about it. Fuck off to saudi arabia where you can abuse all the woman you want.
What about the childs choice to live- they have NO choice, what about their human rights. What about the fathers rights, it is his child too. It takes 2 to make a baby.
Tell me, do you also advocate that muslims in Ireland should 'fuck off to Saudi Arabia' or is your stance only against whites and Christians, and pro-lifers?
Personally for young women and kids who are raped, I think abortion should be there. And it is there in Ireland, in irish hospitals, if the life of the woman is at risk, which I am all for.
But abortion on demand I am against, what about the choice, the right for the child to live and have a life? Are you really saying it is ok to kill someone who is completely vulnerable?
What is really embarrassing is people who are embarrased from taking stances simply because they are more preoccupied with image and not looking cool or not being popular. They are embarrrassed into not doing what is right, and that is what is truly an embarrassment.
I would take this stand, no matter if all 6billion people on the planet were against me, and booed and hissed. It is simply the right thing to do, and I will stand by that no matter what.
I wonder how quickly Ireland would allow abortion if Britain refused to allow anymore Irish to have abortions in her country? Pretty fucking quickly you pro-lifers would be overwhelmed by secular Irish support fot abortion!!
@dogma01011951 I don't think you actually realise that the majority of Irish people are against abortion, listening to abortion debates in classrooms, on the radio etc., it's pretty damn clear what the Irish want, and it's not abortion, it's the protection of ALL human life from conception to natural death! And statistics have shown that! Oh and just so your aware of it, the amount of Irish women travelling to England for abortions has actually been decreasing over the past 10 years!
@PaulerF96 If you say so. Its your laws not mine but I feel very sorry for women in your country forced by ancient dogma of The Pope, to have children they cannot afford/are not emotionally ready for etc. Its sad for the woman, its sad for the poor child and its sad for a modern country to have such draconian laws. Good luck finding science, its out there!! Unlike the Catholic church who love unborn babies but couldn't give a fuck about the actual living people dying of starvation etc
Funny how Britain has always imposed their views on Ireland for centuries. After all they forced them to stop speaking Gailec and to immigrate to other countries. Britain get a life and leave Ireland alone. Get the fuck out. All they want is independence and if they want to stay Pro- Life, allow it.
@jawsfan95 ITS NOT ABOUT BRITAIN IMPOSING its about the free fucking world imposing against this backward religious based bullshit. Finally I've found a use for the European courts. Thank fuck.
abortion is murder full stop . no pro choice, murder , if i went out and murdered someone id get jail , so why arent abortionsts getting the same , legalised murder, end of , god is the only one who has the right to say who lives or dies, there is a god and he watching what we do ,
@mufc1970ok Yea I'm sure the kids that get the shit beaten out of them daily by their parents, the kids that go hungry everyday because their parents are too poor to feed them, the kids that go from foster home to foster home, the kids that never know what it is like to have a real family because they were put up for adoption at birth and stuck in a foster home until 18, the kids that end up on the street homeless and scared would agree with you on your stance.
@mufc1970ok I hate to break this to you, but there are a lot of cases like that. Do you believe that there are no homeless or starving children in the world? Maybe if there parents, who clearly were not able to financially or emotionally take care of them had considered abortion then they wouldn't be in those situations. Hey, but if they make a law that all people pro life have to adopt at least 2 or 3 of these kids, then I will be on board for making abortion illegal.
@grad2010ism hate to break it to me , who do you think your talking too, maybe if those parents didnt have children that they cant afford they wouldnt have to have abortions , its legalised murder, same as a teenager having sex, that cant afford the child, there is only one person who says who lives or dies and thats god almighty, period, human life is not disposable you know, abortion is a very serious sin
@mufc1970ok But the reality is that people who cannot afford to have children and teenagers are going to have sex and have kids they can't take care of. That is why it is important to educate in safe sex. Look I think abortion is a horrible thing, but sometimes it is a necessary choice. No one is telling you to stop believing what you believe, but you have to accept that women have the right to decide for themselves.
@grad2010ism tell you what , if i was you id look into what the blessed virgin mary said at akita and what god thinks of abortion and you get back to me ,
@mufc1970ok There is no point in arguing with you because obviously you are one of the crazy religious extremists that are beyond reason or logic and you believe that if everyone does not live the type of life you live, then they are sinners. Homosexuality is not a sin, it is two people that are happy being themselves. I feel sorry for you because all you see is your own beliefs and you will spend the rest of your life, coldly, judging others, while they live there lives.
@grad2010ism since when is telling the truth crazy , sodomy , homosexuality is a serious sin , god made adam and eve not adam and steve, dont feel soory for me feel soory for yourself im not the one promoting abortion, the whole world has lost its sence of sin wright and wrong, like i said look into what the blessed virgin mary ;ie the mother of jesus christ ; said at fatima , akita, garabandal , we should be on our knees asking god almight for his mercy on this wicked generation,
@grad2010ism abortion on demand , homosexual marrige, child porn , porn , murder rape as the norm, you think in raving far from it everthing ive said is the truth ,
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 do ya know what i dont care what you think wether you want to believe it or not its all true , mark my words all these disasters are going to get worse, the whole world has lost its sence of sin
@mufc1970ok you are right. Have you read the book "Demonic Abortion" by Father Euteneuer? Abortion has been occuring for a long time and their is a demonic force behind it. It is very sad to see the numbers of people that are in support for it, that is why we need to pray for its end.
Whether people believe it or not, the Nazi ideology is becoming more prevalent around the world. So many people, unfortunately, choose to live blindly.
@member250108 thank you for your comment , someone finally with some sence , you might think my views are extreme but there true any country where abortion is legal is at war , america , uk , france etc, please do me a favour pray for more priests like fr tom euteneur , fr john corapi, fr frank pavone all great priests , abortion is evil murder its the work of the devil
@mufc1970ok Homosexuality and child porn are not even the same thing. Two gay people getting married are two human beings that love each other and are willingly sharing their lives with each other. Child porn is forcing a child to do something that hurts them. God loves everyone, including homosexuals. I just pray that God forgives you.
@grad2010ism pray that god forgives me are you serious, when was the last time you were in confession , as i said god man to be with woman not the other way round, everything ive said in my last posts is the truth , yes he does love the sinner but hates the sin , can you name one thing ive said that is not true and not a sin , come on then
The anti -choice taliban are oposed to freedom of speech and have no debating points left. So they are forced en-masse to mark all pro-chioce comments as spam. Obviously they also think they can decide for everyone which comments should be allowed and which shouldnt.
IF YOU CAN READ THIS COMMENT , once again they have decided to silence the opposition because THEY dont want you to see something, and reposting this comment is my response to their opressive behaviour.
The fact is that Abortion not only ends a human life but it ALSO hurts the woman. Instead of carrying her child for Nine months she ends up carrying an emotional Suitcase with her for the rest of her life. Find a girl that has had an abortion and you will find a girl that has been suicidal, has drug/alcohol abuse problems, sleeping problems, depression and a host of other traumas.
I think what you are asking is 'what would I want to see happen to women who have abortions if abortion were illegal' Well here in the States if a (today when it is legal) when a woman tries to perform an abortion WITHOUT a doctor (an illegal abortion, whatever that means) she goes to jail for a short time and then she is released for psychiatric care. If a man performs an 'illegal abortion' he goes to jail for a long period of time. There are women here that murder 3 year olds and get the same.
So to answer your question. I think the people that perform the abortion should be held accountable. The charge being murder. In the majority of cases women do not perform abortions on themselves. There are not that many people out there that will perform an abortion. So very few people would go to jail. Have you seen abortion? Click on my name and watch the featured video. In the States Abortion is available all the way through the NINTH month. This is not about rights its about MONEY!
That is your response? I think that a woman that does not want to have a baby should not have sex. We make choices in life and choices have consequences. It is called RESPONSIBILITY. Something that is completely lacking today. If I park illegally and get a parking ticket should I be forced to pay for it? Yes I should I should be responsible. Beause if I TEAR up that ticket it will keep coming back to haunt me.
People ALREADY are taking the risk of having a baby every time they have sex. Birth Control is not effective ALL the time. Or are you saying that Abortion should be the NORMAL method of Birth Control? Some people do have familes of 20 or more. Remember when familes were larger less than 100 years ago and the world was a much better. You see children turn boys into Men. Something that this world lacks today. Too many boys and not enough men.
The world was much better? My grandmother grew up in a slum in the north of england in the 30s, she had nothing and her living conditions were the same as a third world country. She had 4 sisters and 3 brothers. Guess how many of them survived to adulthood? And she came from a family of coal miners so apparently was doing all right! The funny thing is that alot of peoples lives didnt improve until the war started and rationing was introduced.
you would not even be talking to me if it were not for your Grandmother. The world was much TOUGHER 100 years ago but the morality was better. People had respect for people. There were real men back then (they were the ones that fought WWII).
I cant beleive that you are comparing having sex to getting a parking fine. If thats your view of sex than I wish you good luck on losing your virginity idiot. You know its cunts like you what would tar and feather some poor girl for trying to get out of trouble and save some poor kid from a life of poverty and want.
Did you know that if you take an 8 month pregnant woman and take her fetus out it will live? It will be a living baby. And you just said that it is 'her decision' to kill it. So you are saying that killing children is 'ok' in your view. And you call me crazy?
Any pregnant woman I meet and she tells me that she is going to have an abortion. I do not yell at her. I only offer her everything she is lacking in her 'Crisis' Pregnancy. I try to take away the 'Crisis' so she will be happy with happy
Most women DO NOT WANT to have an abortion. They lack things though FIRST AND FOREMOST is a FATHER. And that Father generally is pushing for the Abortion. Women in Crisis Pregnancies are scared and feel alone. They just need a little help. No Mother wants to kill her child. She just feels forced to do so. I try to make sure that she can get everything she needs. Diapers, clothing, food, a place to live. Take away the Crisis. So it is just a pregnancy.
There is no right to exist by the efforts and toll of another party. I've asked you several times to make the case for it, and you've failed miserably.
I might have humored you further, but I'm BORED. Anyone who considers the actual EFFECTS on women and children should abortion be made illegal in the free world to be so irrelevant as to call mentioning them "an appeal to emotion" is clearly someone with no sense of reason whatsoever.
"Taking into account the experience of (forced) pregnancy"
Someone can not cause their own pregnancy and then complain it was forced. That is a contradiction in terms.
Morals come from rules, not from subjective experiences. And besides the subjective impact can be ameliorated. Even on the broad scale social engineering can fix a lot of it. If you consider subjective experiences above rules by definition you are not considering morals.
Yes, if greater harm would be done by them discontinuing that state of existence. See natural rights come from natural law. (vis Lincoln's "we do not have a right to do what is wrong") So now if greater bad will come of the situation by killing the kid then natural law would dictate that we not kill the kid. Since natural rights are based on natural law this would then prohibit the existence of rights that break that law and mandate rights consistent with it.
Again, you'll need to make the case that women being forced to carry and bear unwanted children against their will, and bring them into a world unwilling to care for them causes LESS harm than abortion. :)
Easy. Just do a utility calculation. On the one side we have "woman 'forced' to carry an unwanted child to term" and "the kid living in an uncaring world afterwards" and on the other side we have "a chopped up baby."
Well considering that quality of life and personal autonomy only exist because one is alive in the first place, they must therefore be lesser goods than being alive. Thus logically the good of being alive outweighs the bad of partial autonomy loss and bad quality of life.
Sweetie, I've worked in women's clinics. Most abortions mean a woman swallows a pill and has a heavy period. You're so irrational because you buy into outrageous propaganda. :/
Again, possession of life is not a case for a RIGHT to life, or else every period and ejaculate would be a holocaust. Quite silly. :) Our rights are relative to the rights of others.
There's nothing "partial" about the autonomy lost should the state dictate who should bear children. :)
"every period and ejaculate would be a holocaust."
Who ever said that sperm and eggs were human organisms? From what I recall the scientist who discovered the Down's Syndrome chromosome said that human life begins only AFTER the two combine.
And yes it's partial. Because all they have to do is carry the kid for 9 months and then give it up for adoption. Duh!! :D
Sperm and eggs are analogous because they POTENTIALLY could form biological human life, just as a fetus could POTENTIALLY result in a physiologically independent person. But the potential is not the actual any more than an acorn is an oak tree, I'm afraid.
"All they have to do?" How many times has your body been ripped apart in childbirth, Sir? How many foster children have you followed through years of poverty and abuse? Your pitiful rationale is one thing, but your sadism is outrageous.
"Sperm and eggs are analogous because they POTENTIALLY could form biological human life,"
How is that analogous. Sperm and eggs could potentially combine to form a distinct human organism while a fetal child or even before that ALREADY IS a distinct human organism. I don't see how you bring "potential" in to describe something that already IS.
And yes technically an acorn is a baby oak tree. If you don't think so ask yourself if you would consider oaks extinct if all that was left was acorns.
A fetus is not physiologically independent, it merely has this potential, as I said. There is no case to be made for its rights without first suspending those of the woman on whose body it feeds.
I know the definition of "extinct", so of course I wouldn't. :)
First of all rights can exist before they are overriden by greater rights so your statement doesn't follow. Secondly whether or not we talk of rights in the situation we CAN talk about goods. Since the fetal child's good of living outweighs the abortive mothers good of being completely autonomous, the precedence must go to the former.
"definition of "extinct", so of course I wouldn't."
Exactly so you wouldn't then think of the acorn as not a "baby oak."
I detect an appeal to emotion. I do not see how the subjective experience of a pregnancy is logically relevant to the objective facts of the situation. Emotion & subjectivity =/= logic & reason.
It sounds to me like someone needs a Vulcan mind meld -for the purposes of think more logically and less emotionally. What emotionally or subjectively FEELS best is not always the same as what objectively or rationally IS best.
Taking into account the experience of (forced) pregnancy is hardly an appeal to emotion. Most of us when considering moral approaches first consider the lives of those who would be most impacted- in this case, the woman and her family.
Objectively, forcing individuals to bear children against their will causes immense suffering to both women and these unwanted children. Unless your moral imperatives hold that whichever course cause the MOST harm is preferred, in which case I can't help you.
I don't need to. All I have to do is make a positive case for their inherent rights and then show that the concern of "subsisting on others independently of their consistent -which isn't entirely true BTW" is less important than that right.
Hmm, I believe I already did that. Well I didn't dismantle it I only proved that it was secondary and not foundational.
Ok, listen up because apparently you didn't get this the first time. The good of bodily autonomy only exists because the good of life first exists. For example if you were not alive your bodily autonomy would not exist either. Since life is needed for autonomy but not vice-versa it therefore follows that life is primary to autonomy. See? Isn't that simple? :D
You merely regurgitate the same fallacy: that we must possess life to have rights, so a right-to-life is the primary one.
Our right to life is merely an extension of our assumed autonomy. Foundational rights are not defined as exclusive of others, but rather the basis for them.
It's no fallacy. Rather to deny that autonomy requires life is a fallacy -in particular the "denying the correlative" fallacy.
To be someone who has rights you must first be a "someone" -ie a live individual. Thus life is needed as a prerequisite before we can even begin to talk about rights. If you doubt this just ask yourself if dead people have rights or if it even makes sense to ask such a question.
So no, autonomy is an extension of the rights we have because we are alive not vice-versa.
Wrong. Rights are not derived from autonomy. It is circular to argue that you are the source of your own rights. Rights are derived from goods.
The rights to life and autonomy are derived from the goods of life and autonomy. Since the good of life is greater than the good of autonomy the right to life is greater than the latter.
Rights can't exist if they aren't derived from some sort of moral framework -in this case this involves utilitarianism. If not then you can morally violate rights.
"Unless your moral imperatives hold that whichever course cause the MOST harm is preferred, in which case I can't help you."
And no my moral imperatives tell me to take whichever course causes the least OBJECTIVE HARM. However they are indifferent to SUBJECTIVE HARM. They aren't affected one way or the other by what someone happens to subjectively refer to as 'harm.'
No look at a chopped up baby -now that's REAL ACTUAL HARM.
"Foundational rights are not defined as exclusive of others, but rather the basis for them."
Well I see no problem then because autonomy is not a foundational right. It is a derivative right. To say otherwise would suggest that there can be right to autonomy without any LIVE individual to attach it to -meaningless nonsense.
To say that autonomy is more foundational than life is incomprehensible jibberish because without life what would there be to have autonomy?
Yes it does imply it is foundational. If you do not possess a right to life then you can not possess any other rights either. For example a condemned criminal has no rights to autonomy either.
"We've been over this."
Yes we have, and you have yet to provide a logical argument for why the right to autonomy supercedes the right to life. Explain this please.
So why exactly do these people trust women to decide whether or not to have an abortion when so very many abortive mothers can't be trusted to be responsible for the fetal rights of their children? For the life of me I can't understand how they could think this in light of that fact.
Yes I know. That's why I don't think abortive mothers should be allowed to own the persons of their fetal children.
Unfortunately abortive mothers are often irresponsible though and thus often require state and/or church intervention to ensure that they do not misbehave.
I don't need to. The right to life for human beings is primary. After that point it may happen to be the case that a human being may find him or herself in various situations -including being in a state of living off another.
However these are merely externals to what they are, and what they are is the cause of their rights. So I really don't see how peripherals like ones being unborn are relevant to intrinsic rights that one has.
All right, I am pro-life but I don't regard my pro-life view as being derived from religion. However, if it is necessary to mix religion with politics to get rid of abortion then so be it. If that many people are in favor of abortion for their own selfish reasons then they DON'T DESERVE to live in a secularly based society.
Excuse me but how the hell can you start preaching what is right and wrong, its least of all your decision, and mixing relgion and politics is the basis for a War. Your the selfish one!!!
"Excuse me but how the hell can you start preaching what is right and wrong,"
Any rational being can do that.
"its least of all your decision,"
Why not? I mean if we are going to be into making capricious decisions about others lives (ie the choice to murder a kid in abortion) then why can't I make decisions for abortive mothers? Afterall they are too stupid to make their own decisions by themselves anyway.
Abortion is not murder, and you can't make judgements like that about women that have abortions, do you know every single one of them in person? I can without a doubt say you do not! That is a rather polemic statement to make!!
"Abortion is terminating a pregnancy at the stage of when the pregnancy is a foetus not a child so that statement is pointless."
What? A fetal child is a child all the way through the pregnancy. That's not religious belief that's just science. A child is a juvenile of the human species and fetal children are not adult organisms of the human species so they must be juvenile members of the human species (ie. they are children)
Im doing a report on an investigation into why religion is used in a pro life arguement against abortion? could anyone that is either pri life/religious or can think of any reasons let me know why they or know why religion is used in an arguement against abortion, as i see it as how can you inflict your religious views on someone else who may have different views as you.
its not a matter of imposing ur views on someone. I can tell you from Christian & Catholic teaching that God says to choose life, deuteronomy & also in the 10 commandments, thou shall not kill. This religion professes the truth, & truth is that life begins @ conception, truth backed up by science, because life cant begin at any other time. Life is sacred and should be protected no matter how old or how small you are. If u need a reference, check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church online.
I was christened a catholic and I went to a catholic school and I was brought up by strict Catholics, I can understand what you saying and I respect your views but I do not agree with them I believe life begins at birth and I have read the bible and I personally think religion is a matter of opinion not fact.
Just because it says in this "rule book" if you like that life is sacred etc,
Just because it says in the bible God says.... does not mean he does as how can you base your whole life around one book with no proof to back it up, and I don't believe you can use science and religion in the same argument because they contradict each other.
And just because the catholic religion does not agree with abortion does not mean they have the right to tell the whole world that its wrong or right.
I do not tell other people how to live their life so i believe that others shouldn't either.I believe its down to an individual and the situation they are in at the time
I do not believe you can judge people as a whole and it also says in the bible "thou shall not judge others" and you should le judging to God.
I was brought up in a Catholic Family I went to a Catholic Primary and secondary school and it also says in the bible that "thou shall not judge" therefore those who are pro life should not judge thos who have abortion as it is Gods decision and it also says that humans were created in Gods image so those who insult women who have abortions are insulting God's creation and God.
"says in the bible that "thou shall not judge" "thos who have abortion as it is Gods decision"
Yes but if you recall in the very next verse after it says not the judge it says "you will judge a tree by its fruit." The intent of the passage was not to say "don't judge" but not the judge hypocritically.
"those who insult women who have abortions are insulting God's creation and God."
Making factual judgments isn't insulting. Besides what do abortive mothers do to God's creation? They kill it.
your just twisting everything i say, and these are not factual judgements they are your personal opinion, why can't you understand that you can't inflict your views upon others
I figured as much. "I've done enough research to make my own mind"
My suspicion is that you have not done research but are merely holding your position because you had one. Not to point fingers, but I have had enough of these conversations to smell this out when a conversation goes a certain way. The people involved usually get technical about terms used and less about substance because they are hiding behind excuses. Am I right? did you get one?
For your information i have not had one so your wrong, I know of people who have. and yes i have done enough research and your opinion or "suspcions" don't matter to me.
Hmm no, you need research some biology. A distinct human organism begins when you have a being with it's own genetic identity. This is at fetilization not birth. If you doubt this just look up world reknowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune on the topic. It's a biological fact that it begins at fertilization. Besides this notion that it begins at birth has the addtional problem that during prenatal surgery the fetal child is sometimes removed temporarily which confuses the notion of birth.
No I do not to research anything in biology, Human life begins at birth, there is potential for human life before that as it has the same dna as a human being hence the name foetus- but its the same as saying a cell or bacteria
You should because that is highly relevant to the issue.
"Human life begins at birth,"
Where did you come across that notion? Because it's wrong. You can have a fetal child who is temporarily removed for surgery and then placed back in. Thus he is not a person a person and not a person again. That doesn't make sense.
I have done enough research and every biology book I've read or lecturer in biology I have spoken says human life begins at birth. It does make sense.
"every biology book I've read or lecturer in biology I have spoken says human life begins at birth."
I don't know what to say. Every biology book I have read as well as the opinions of many scientists who deal with the matter say the opposite. Perhaps it's a matter of equivocation. How exactly are we defining human life here?
Well that's the thing I don't think it does. The fetal child is not the same organism as the mother. So if it exists as alive yet does not the same as any other organism what is it? It has to be it's own organism.
"I couldn't care less what you think if I'm honest, and its a foetus not fetal child."
I couldn't care less what you think if I'm honest, and its a fetal child not a foetus.
Your quibbling over the terms used demonstrates that you are hiding behind them. You say fetus I say fetal child but they both refer to the same thing. And in the end that is what matters from a strictly logical point of view.
I said "fetal child" not child. You're correct that the correct definition USED in science is fetus, but that DOES NOT imply that it's the correct term for ETHICAL discussion. When used in ETHICS "fetus" is dehumanizing and carries an anti-fetocentric bigotry It makes the fetal child sound like a thing not a who.
To analogize if I said "terminate a homo sapiens with a lead projectile" I would be SCIENTIFICALLY accurate. But that doesn't convey the same moral sense as "shoot someone with a gun."
Actually its foetus and the term is not dehumanizing, it is a scientific fact of what it is at that stage. and either way your wasting your time here because I've done enough research to make my own mind up about the subject of termination and your not going to change my mind on that matter.
"Actually its foetus and the term is not dehumanizing,"
Yes it is because it makes the fetal child sound like a thing rather than a who.
"scientific fact of what it is at that stage."
No that's the TERM used to relay a scientific fact. The science is not in dispute, the LANGUAGE is. If I were to say "terminating a homo sapiens with a lead projectile" that would be a scientific fact and a scientifically accurate way to say it. But it would be more dehumanizing than "murder someone with a gun."
I find it very hard to believe that the term foetus is dehumanizing. and also what makes humans so important? I ask that because the way you talk is as if you think humans are superior to every other living organism.
More advanced beings also have evolved more advanced values systems, as values systems are also the product of evolution. Hence "superiority" is merely the values based equivalent of "advanced." And we can therefore understand that we are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom because our more evolved values conceptions tell us so.
"Superior basically means you think you better then another for whatever reason it does not mean advanced."
Well no the reason is that our idea of superiority comes from our advanced evolutionary state. They're really just the same thing. The only difference is that "superior" has a value connotation to it whereas "advanced" just means advanced evolutionarily.
"there is potential for human life before that as it has the same dna as a human being hence the name foetus- but its the same as saying a cell or bacteria"
Hmm except that it has it's own separate DNA and a complete set of it. Hence it is a separate organism. The difference between the fetal child and bacteria is that the bacteria does not belong to an intelligent species whereas the fetal child has latent intelligence, no different from a sleeping person who's intelligence is also latent.
"a foetus is not a child so therefore not a fetal child, that simply does not make sense. "
As I told you before, "fetus" is not appropriate for ethical discussion. It makes the fetal child appear to be less than it is: a juvenile person. (which it is of course because it is a juvenile member of an intelligent species)
i was brought up in the same way and i guess they forgot to mention to you the part in the bible where it says, thou shall not kill. theres a HUGE difference between recognizing that a certain action is wrong and whether a person feels sorry or not about their actions committed. judging their feelings would be wrongful. but if you see someone killing another, you know thats wrong.
for your information I have read that, and yes you would know its wrong if you witnessed a murder however but there is a difference between knowing something is wrong and judging them for it.
I'm sorry but I can judge a murderer as having done wrong as well. It wouldn't make sense to judge an action with imputing a moral status to the actor of that action.
Actually I haven't seen religion used in arguments against abortion very frequently. I've always been pro-life and I've never used religion based arguments nor have most all of the other pro-lifers I know.
On almost every social networking site I've seen. I've seen pro lifers use religion as the basis for the arguements As well as the ones I know in person I can say the majoirty of them do.
"and mixing relgion and politics is the basis for a War."
Yes but that is good sometimes. Depending on the war it may be in the national interest, in which case religion provides an excellent means to promote it. Just look up "God is on our side" and "Starship Troopers" in a youtube search. :) "Your the selfish one!!!"
Ok Which wars are good then? have you ever studied about wars?for example the first world war and what actually went on and not just the battlefield. And yes you are the selfish ones because your the ones that wants too take away a womens rights and choices.
Well the civil and revolutionary wars for example are good wars that used religion to motivate them.
"And yes you are the selfish ones because your the ones that wants too take away a womens rights and choices. "
This is a non sequiter. How does wanting to take away an illegitimate right selfish?
For example if I wanted to take away a slave-owners "right" to own slaves that would be justified and not selfish. So would you mind explaining this accusation better?
You cannot compare slave owners with women who have terminations, termination of a pregnancy is not illegal, well not where I'm from anyway. And why exactly were those wars good, how can you say war is good yet abortion is wrong, because in wars thousands if not millions die, is that acceptable? you could also argue that war and abortion are just methods of controlling the population.
"On almost every social networking site I've seen. I've seen pro lifers use religion as the basis for the arguements As well as the ones I know in person I can say the majoirty of them do."
That is strange because that has not been my experience. Most pro-lifers I know are religious but do not use religious arguments when talking about abortion.
i'm irish and pro choice i want abortion to be safe legal free and rare in ireland the church should let women have a say in what happens to their own bodies
I think Abortion should be legal in Ireland, and i don't think the church should have really any say in it, would people rather "diy" abortions if those who cannot afford to go abroad for one.
There is a lot of invective floating around in here....so what I would say is this: don't do to somebody else what you don't want done to yourself.
I think a lot of these pro-abortion sentiments are down to arrogance and aggression, that is to say, women have or want abortions, simply because it is their "right".
For a start, it is not their "right". There is a difference between a "right" on one behalf and a "power" on the other behalf.
Are you basically saying that us who are pro choice are pro abortion because that is not the case.
I believe a women has a right to what happens to her body and I understand some people including your self will disagree with me, but what I don't understand is why can't we come to agreement, its simple those who don't agree don't have one and leave alone those who do have them.
I don't now how anybody can look at abortion photos of dismembered, little arms, legs, crushed skulls and blood and not see that a human life has been brutally ended.
I never listened much to the pro-life arguments, it was the actual images of aborted babies that opened my eyes to what this is really about.
TempusFugit101 6 months ago
@TempusFugit101 The fetus is already dead by then, if you can even truly call it alive. So it's just flesh and bones being pulled out. Yes it's gruesome, but not the end of the world. Also, that's only one method of abortion. Not nearly all abortions go that way.
Sanquinity 4 months ago
Of all the things that are embarassing about my country, the pro lifers take the whole pack of biscuits. Most irish women just order the abortion pills online nowadays anyhow, so you pro lifers can sleep safe in the knowledge that theres plenty of abortions going on here every day and there aint shit you can do about it. Fuck off to saudi arabia where you can abuse all the woman you want.
eireagusalbion 10 months ago
@eireagusalbion
What about the childs choice to live- they have NO choice, what about their human rights. What about the fathers rights, it is his child too. It takes 2 to make a baby.
Tell me, do you also advocate that muslims in Ireland should 'fuck off to Saudi Arabia' or is your stance only against whites and Christians, and pro-lifers?
lrishNationalist 7 months ago
Personally for young women and kids who are raped, I think abortion should be there. And it is there in Ireland, in irish hospitals, if the life of the woman is at risk, which I am all for.
But abortion on demand I am against, what about the choice, the right for the child to live and have a life? Are you really saying it is ok to kill someone who is completely vulnerable?
lrishNationalist 7 months ago
@eireagusalbion
What is really embarrassing is people who are embarrased from taking stances simply because they are more preoccupied with image and not looking cool or not being popular. They are embarrrassed into not doing what is right, and that is what is truly an embarrassment.
I would take this stand, no matter if all 6billion people on the planet were against me, and booed and hissed. It is simply the right thing to do, and I will stand by that no matter what.
lrishNationalist 7 months ago
I wonder how quickly Ireland would allow abortion if Britain refused to allow anymore Irish to have abortions in her country? Pretty fucking quickly you pro-lifers would be overwhelmed by secular Irish support fot abortion!!
dogma01011951 1 year ago
@dogma01011951 I don't think you actually realise that the majority of Irish people are against abortion, listening to abortion debates in classrooms, on the radio etc., it's pretty damn clear what the Irish want, and it's not abortion, it's the protection of ALL human life from conception to natural death! And statistics have shown that! Oh and just so your aware of it, the amount of Irish women travelling to England for abortions has actually been decreasing over the past 10 years!
PaulerF96 10 months ago
@PaulerF96 If you say so. Its your laws not mine but I feel very sorry for women in your country forced by ancient dogma of The Pope, to have children they cannot afford/are not emotionally ready for etc. Its sad for the woman, its sad for the poor child and its sad for a modern country to have such draconian laws. Good luck finding science, its out there!! Unlike the Catholic church who love unborn babies but couldn't give a fuck about the actual living people dying of starvation etc
dogma01011951 10 months ago
let Ireland stay pro-life if thats what irish women want.
MrGayKieran 1 year ago
Funny how Britain has always imposed their views on Ireland for centuries. After all they forced them to stop speaking Gailec and to immigrate to other countries. Britain get a life and leave Ireland alone. Get the fuck out. All they want is independence and if they want to stay Pro- Life, allow it.
jawsfan95 1 year ago
@jawsfan95 ITS NOT ABOUT BRITAIN IMPOSING its about the free fucking world imposing against this backward religious based bullshit. Finally I've found a use for the European courts. Thank fuck.
dogma01011951 1 year ago
Abortion is only tissue
HowardSternn 1 year ago
abortion is murder full stop . no pro choice, murder , if i went out and murdered someone id get jail , so why arent abortionsts getting the same , legalised murder, end of , god is the only one who has the right to say who lives or dies, there is a god and he watching what we do ,
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok Yea I'm sure the kids that get the shit beaten out of them daily by their parents, the kids that go hungry everyday because their parents are too poor to feed them, the kids that go from foster home to foster home, the kids that never know what it is like to have a real family because they were put up for adoption at birth and stuck in a foster home until 18, the kids that end up on the street homeless and scared would agree with you on your stance.
grad2010ism 1 year ago
@grad2010ism it doesnt always work out like that , so you would rather murder them ,
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok I hate to break this to you, but there are a lot of cases like that. Do you believe that there are no homeless or starving children in the world? Maybe if there parents, who clearly were not able to financially or emotionally take care of them had considered abortion then they wouldn't be in those situations. Hey, but if they make a law that all people pro life have to adopt at least 2 or 3 of these kids, then I will be on board for making abortion illegal.
grad2010ism 1 year ago
@grad2010ism hate to break it to me , who do you think your talking too, maybe if those parents didnt have children that they cant afford they wouldnt have to have abortions , its legalised murder, same as a teenager having sex, that cant afford the child, there is only one person who says who lives or dies and thats god almighty, period, human life is not disposable you know, abortion is a very serious sin
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok But the reality is that people who cannot afford to have children and teenagers are going to have sex and have kids they can't take care of. That is why it is important to educate in safe sex. Look I think abortion is a horrible thing, but sometimes it is a necessary choice. No one is telling you to stop believing what you believe, but you have to accept that women have the right to decide for themselves.
grad2010ism 1 year ago
@grad2010ism tell you what , if i was you id look into what the blessed virgin mary said at akita and what god thinks of abortion and you get back to me ,
homosexuality and abortion two very serious sins
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok There is no point in arguing with you because obviously you are one of the crazy religious extremists that are beyond reason or logic and you believe that if everyone does not live the type of life you live, then they are sinners. Homosexuality is not a sin, it is two people that are happy being themselves. I feel sorry for you because all you see is your own beliefs and you will spend the rest of your life, coldly, judging others, while they live there lives.
grad2010ism 1 year ago
@grad2010ism since when is telling the truth crazy , sodomy , homosexuality is a serious sin , god made adam and eve not adam and steve, dont feel soory for me feel soory for yourself im not the one promoting abortion, the whole world has lost its sence of sin wright and wrong, like i said look into what the blessed virgin mary ;ie the mother of jesus christ ; said at fatima , akita, garabandal , we should be on our knees asking god almight for his mercy on this wicked generation,
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@grad2010ism abortion on demand , homosexual marrige, child porn , porn , murder rape as the norm, you think in raving far from it everthing ive said is the truth ,
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok how is being gay the same as abortion?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 there two main sins that god almighty is very angry about , legalised murder = ABORTION , SODOMY= HOMOSEXUALITY, he sees it all
you mark my words he is punishing this world for those two sins , its the truth , the world is in total chaos would you agree
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok dude, keep your religion to your self. if you don't want to be gay, then don't. your're freaking crazy.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 do ya know what i dont care what you think wether you want to believe it or not its all true , mark my words all these disasters are going to get worse, the whole world has lost its sence of sin
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok you are right. Have you read the book "Demonic Abortion" by Father Euteneuer? Abortion has been occuring for a long time and their is a demonic force behind it. It is very sad to see the numbers of people that are in support for it, that is why we need to pray for its end.
Whether people believe it or not, the Nazi ideology is becoming more prevalent around the world. So many people, unfortunately, choose to live blindly.
member250108 1 year ago
@member250108 thank you for your comment , someone finally with some sence , you might think my views are extreme but there true any country where abortion is legal is at war , america , uk , france etc, please do me a favour pray for more priests like fr tom euteneur , fr john corapi, fr frank pavone all great priests , abortion is evil murder its the work of the devil
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
@mufc1970ok Homosexuality and child porn are not even the same thing. Two gay people getting married are two human beings that love each other and are willingly sharing their lives with each other. Child porn is forcing a child to do something that hurts them. God loves everyone, including homosexuals. I just pray that God forgives you.
grad2010ism 1 year ago
@grad2010ism pray that god forgives me are you serious, when was the last time you were in confession , as i said god man to be with woman not the other way round, everything ive said in my last posts is the truth , yes he does love the sinner but hates the sin , can you name one thing ive said that is not true and not a sin , come on then
mufc1970ok 1 year ago
watch?v=7tdrdBlZTws
greenmagoos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The anti -choice taliban are oposed to freedom of speech and have no debating points left. So they are forced en-masse to mark all pro-chioce comments as spam. Obviously they also think they can decide for everyone which comments should be allowed and which shouldnt.
IF YOU CAN READ THIS COMMENT , once again they have decided to silence the opposition because THEY dont want you to see something, and reposting this comment is my response to their opressive behaviour.
MrGenefrenkle 2 years ago
The fact is that Abortion not only ends a human life but it ALSO hurts the woman. Instead of carrying her child for Nine months she ends up carrying an emotional Suitcase with her for the rest of her life. Find a girl that has had an abortion and you will find a girl that has been suicidal, has drug/alcohol abuse problems, sleeping problems, depression and a host of other traumas.
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
Women who have babies also commit suicide, have drug/alcohol problems, can't sleep, are depressed and have other problems.
So try a better argument.
If a woman wants an abortion it's her business not yours.
TheTipperaryMan 2 years ago
Not at the rate women who abort their children. Not even close. This is a scientific fact. Intelligence does not argue with science.
This is not an argument at all. I was only stating FACTS. You really cannot get any better than FACTS. The Truth does not change.
Your right abortion is the woman who wants to kill her childs business AND the Abortion Industries Business not mine.
I never said it was my business.
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
Point taken.
But supposing you made it your business and there was a ban on abortion? Would you classify it as murder?
Would you jail thousands of women for murder every year?
Would you put thousands of women in custody to prevent them from having abortions and lock them up for attempted murder?
Parents, boyfriends, husbands and friends would all be locked up as accomplice in murder or as accomplices to conspiracy to murder.
How would be build the huge prisons?
That would be nuts.
TheTipperaryMan 2 years ago
I think what you are asking is 'what would I want to see happen to women who have abortions if abortion were illegal' Well here in the States if a (today when it is legal) when a woman tries to perform an abortion WITHOUT a doctor (an illegal abortion, whatever that means) she goes to jail for a short time and then she is released for psychiatric care. If a man performs an 'illegal abortion' he goes to jail for a long period of time. There are women here that murder 3 year olds and get the same.
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
PART 2
So to answer your question. I think the people that perform the abortion should be held accountable. The charge being murder. In the majority of cases women do not perform abortions on themselves. There are not that many people out there that will perform an abortion. So very few people would go to jail. Have you seen abortion? Click on my name and watch the featured video. In the States Abortion is available all the way through the NINTH month. This is not about rights its about MONEY!
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
So you think a woman who doesn't want to have a baby should be forced to go through with the pregnancy?
You are a total idiot.
Fuck you.
TheTipperaryMan 2 years ago
That is your response? I think that a woman that does not want to have a baby should not have sex. We make choices in life and choices have consequences. It is called RESPONSIBILITY. Something that is completely lacking today. If I park illegally and get a parking ticket should I be forced to pay for it? Yes I should I should be responsible. Beause if I TEAR up that ticket it will keep coming back to haunt me.
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
Are you stupid or something?
Do you think every time people have sex they should take the risk of having a baby?
What the hell do you think condoms and the contraceptive pill are for?
Why do you think some people use the rythm method?
If people only had sex for procreation then families would have twenty kids or more?
ROTFLMAO
TheTipperaryMan 2 years ago
People ALREADY are taking the risk of having a baby every time they have sex. Birth Control is not effective ALL the time. Or are you saying that Abortion should be the NORMAL method of Birth Control? Some people do have familes of 20 or more. Remember when familes were larger less than 100 years ago and the world was a much better. You see children turn boys into Men. Something that this world lacks today. Too many boys and not enough men.
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
The world was much better? My grandmother grew up in a slum in the north of england in the 30s, she had nothing and her living conditions were the same as a third world country. She had 4 sisters and 3 brothers. Guess how many of them survived to adulthood? And she came from a family of coal miners so apparently was doing all right! The funny thing is that alot of peoples lives didnt improve until the war started and rationing was introduced.
hsybcmpny 2 years ago
you would not even be talking to me if it were not for your Grandmother. The world was much TOUGHER 100 years ago but the morality was better. People had respect for people. There were real men back then (they were the ones that fought WWII).
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
I cant beleive that you are comparing having sex to getting a parking fine. If thats your view of sex than I wish you good luck on losing your virginity idiot. You know its cunts like you what would tar and feather some poor girl for trying to get out of trouble and save some poor kid from a life of poverty and want.
hsybcmpny 2 years ago
Do you think a woman that is 8 months pregnant should be 'forced to go through with the pregnancy?'
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
No. If a woman wants to have abortion it is her decision. End of story.
If you were in a relationship with a woman and she decided she wanted an abortion what would you do?
Hold her prisoner until she gave birth?
Do you go around harassing pregnant women to make sure they don't get any nasty ideas?
You would have to be crazy to think like you.
TheTipperaryMan 2 years ago
Did you know that if you take an 8 month pregnant woman and take her fetus out it will live? It will be a living baby. And you just said that it is 'her decision' to kill it. So you are saying that killing children is 'ok' in your view. And you call me crazy?
Any pregnant woman I meet and she tells me that she is going to have an abortion. I do not yell at her. I only offer her everything she is lacking in her 'Crisis' Pregnancy. I try to take away the 'Crisis' so she will be happy with happy
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
PART 2
Most women DO NOT WANT to have an abortion. They lack things though FIRST AND FOREMOST is a FATHER. And that Father generally is pushing for the Abortion. Women in Crisis Pregnancies are scared and feel alone. They just need a little help. No Mother wants to kill her child. She just feels forced to do so. I try to make sure that she can get everything she needs. Diapers, clothing, food, a place to live. Take away the Crisis. So it is just a pregnancy.
bobbybrady8 2 years ago
There is no right to exist by the efforts and toll of another party. I've asked you several times to make the case for it, and you've failed miserably.
I might have humored you further, but I'm BORED. Anyone who considers the actual EFFECTS on women and children should abortion be made illegal in the free world to be so irrelevant as to call mentioning them "an appeal to emotion" is clearly someone with no sense of reason whatsoever.
eljagg01 2 years ago
There are if the utility calculations say they are.
In this case the good of life outweighs the good of autonomy so apparently there is such a right. :D
"I've asked you several times to make the case for it, and you've failed miserably."
That's because you are illogical. Thus logical arguments do not work on you.
""an appeal to emotion" is clearly someone with no sense of reason"
So I'm not logical because I'm not emotional?! ROFL
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"Taking into account the experience of (forced) pregnancy"
Someone can not cause their own pregnancy and then complain it was forced. That is a contradiction in terms.
Morals come from rules, not from subjective experiences. And besides the subjective impact can be ameliorated. Even on the broad scale social engineering can fix a lot of it. If you consider subjective experiences above rules by definition you are not considering morals.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I'll ask a final time: have you a positive case to make for the "right" to subsist on others independently of their consent?
eljagg01 2 years ago
Yes, if greater harm would be done by them discontinuing that state of existence. See natural rights come from natural law. (vis Lincoln's "we do not have a right to do what is wrong") So now if greater bad will come of the situation by killing the kid then natural law would dictate that we not kill the kid. Since natural rights are based on natural law this would then prohibit the existence of rights that break that law and mandate rights consistent with it.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Again, you'll need to make the case that women being forced to carry and bear unwanted children against their will, and bring them into a world unwilling to care for them causes LESS harm than abortion. :)
eljagg01 2 years ago
Easy. Just do a utility calculation. On the one side we have "woman 'forced' to carry an unwanted child to term" and "the kid living in an uncaring world afterwards" and on the other side we have "a chopped up baby."
Well considering that quality of life and personal autonomy only exist because one is alive in the first place, they must therefore be lesser goods than being alive. Thus logically the good of being alive outweighs the bad of partial autonomy loss and bad quality of life.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Sweetie, I've worked in women's clinics. Most abortions mean a woman swallows a pill and has a heavy period. You're so irrational because you buy into outrageous propaganda. :/
Again, possession of life is not a case for a RIGHT to life, or else every period and ejaculate would be a holocaust. Quite silly. :) Our rights are relative to the rights of others.
There's nothing "partial" about the autonomy lost should the state dictate who should bear children. :)
eljagg01 2 years ago
"Sweetie, I've worked in women's clinics."
Oh, so you're a feticide offender! :D
Where exactly have I swallowed propaganda?
"every period and ejaculate would be a holocaust."
Who ever said that sperm and eggs were human organisms? From what I recall the scientist who discovered the Down's Syndrome chromosome said that human life begins only AFTER the two combine.
And yes it's partial. Because all they have to do is carry the kid for 9 months and then give it up for adoption. Duh!! :D
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Sperm and eggs are analogous because they POTENTIALLY could form biological human life, just as a fetus could POTENTIALLY result in a physiologically independent person. But the potential is not the actual any more than an acorn is an oak tree, I'm afraid.
"All they have to do?" How many times has your body been ripped apart in childbirth, Sir? How many foster children have you followed through years of poverty and abuse? Your pitiful rationale is one thing, but your sadism is outrageous.
eljagg01 2 years ago
"Sperm and eggs are analogous because they POTENTIALLY could form biological human life,"
How is that analogous. Sperm and eggs could potentially combine to form a distinct human organism while a fetal child or even before that ALREADY IS a distinct human organism. I don't see how you bring "potential" in to describe something that already IS.
And yes technically an acorn is a baby oak tree. If you don't think so ask yourself if you would consider oaks extinct if all that was left was acorns.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
A fetus is not physiologically independent, it merely has this potential, as I said. There is no case to be made for its rights without first suspending those of the woman on whose body it feeds.
I know the definition of "extinct", so of course I wouldn't. :)
eljagg01 2 years ago
Physiological independence =/= life.
First of all rights can exist before they are overriden by greater rights so your statement doesn't follow. Secondly whether or not we talk of rights in the situation we CAN talk about goods. Since the fetal child's good of living outweighs the abortive mothers good of being completely autonomous, the precedence must go to the former.
"definition of "extinct", so of course I wouldn't."
Exactly so you wouldn't then think of the acorn as not a "baby oak."
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I detect an appeal to emotion. I do not see how the subjective experience of a pregnancy is logically relevant to the objective facts of the situation. Emotion & subjectivity =/= logic & reason.
It sounds to me like someone needs a Vulcan mind meld -for the purposes of think more logically and less emotionally. What emotionally or subjectively FEELS best is not always the same as what objectively or rationally IS best.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Taking into account the experience of (forced) pregnancy is hardly an appeal to emotion. Most of us when considering moral approaches first consider the lives of those who would be most impacted- in this case, the woman and her family.
Objectively, forcing individuals to bear children against their will causes immense suffering to both women and these unwanted children. Unless your moral imperatives hold that whichever course cause the MOST harm is preferred, in which case I can't help you.
eljagg01 2 years ago
I don't need to. All I have to do is make a positive case for their inherent rights and then show that the concern of "subsisting on others independently of their consistent -which isn't entirely true BTW" is less important than that right.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Deductively dismantle the foundational moral principle of bodily autonomy and self-ownership, then. I've asked several times.
eljagg01 2 years ago
Hmm, I believe I already did that. Well I didn't dismantle it I only proved that it was secondary and not foundational.
Ok, listen up because apparently you didn't get this the first time. The good of bodily autonomy only exists because the good of life first exists. For example if you were not alive your bodily autonomy would not exist either. Since life is needed for autonomy but not vice-versa it therefore follows that life is primary to autonomy. See? Isn't that simple? :D
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
You merely regurgitate the same fallacy: that we must possess life to have rights, so a right-to-life is the primary one.
Our right to life is merely an extension of our assumed autonomy. Foundational rights are not defined as exclusive of others, but rather the basis for them.
You've nothing but circular logic, I'm guessing?
eljagg01 2 years ago
It's no fallacy. Rather to deny that autonomy requires life is a fallacy -in particular the "denying the correlative" fallacy.
To be someone who has rights you must first be a "someone" -ie a live individual. Thus life is needed as a prerequisite before we can even begin to talk about rights. If you doubt this just ask yourself if dead people have rights or if it even makes sense to ask such a question.
So no, autonomy is an extension of the rights we have because we are alive not vice-versa.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I've stated that rights wouldn't exist without life, a number of times, and pointed out why this is irrelevant.
I'll break it down for you a final time, so maybe we can avoid this:
Rights require life.
Possession of life doesn't automatically equal rights.
Of those who do possess rights, the most basic of these is ownership of their person, from which all others are derived. :D
eljagg01 2 years ago
Wrong. Rights are not derived from autonomy. It is circular to argue that you are the source of your own rights. Rights are derived from goods.
The rights to life and autonomy are derived from the goods of life and autonomy. Since the good of life is greater than the good of autonomy the right to life is greater than the latter.
Rights can't exist if they aren't derived from some sort of moral framework -in this case this involves utilitarianism. If not then you can morally violate rights.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"Unless your moral imperatives hold that whichever course cause the MOST harm is preferred, in which case I can't help you."
And no my moral imperatives tell me to take whichever course causes the least OBJECTIVE HARM. However they are indifferent to SUBJECTIVE HARM. They aren't affected one way or the other by what someone happens to subjectively refer to as 'harm.'
No look at a chopped up baby -now that's REAL ACTUAL HARM.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"Foundational rights are not defined as exclusive of others, but rather the basis for them."
Well I see no problem then because autonomy is not a foundational right. It is a derivative right. To say otherwise would suggest that there can be right to autonomy without any LIVE individual to attach it to -meaningless nonsense.
To say that autonomy is more foundational than life is incomprehensible jibberish because without life what would there be to have autonomy?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Life's being necessary for a being to possess other rights doesn't mean a "right-to-life" is foundational.
We've been over this. Regurgitating the same fallacies must become tiring for you.
eljagg01 2 years ago
Yes it does imply it is foundational. If you do not possess a right to life then you can not possess any other rights either. For example a condemned criminal has no rights to autonomy either.
"We've been over this."
Yes we have, and you have yet to provide a logical argument for why the right to autonomy supercedes the right to life. Explain this please.
"the same fallacies"
Show how they are fallacies.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
So why exactly do these people trust women to decide whether or not to have an abortion when so very many abortive mothers can't be trusted to be responsible for the fetal rights of their children? For the life of me I can't understand how they could think this in light of that fact.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Individuals own their person. Not the state or the church. Period. :D
eljagg01 2 years ago
Yes I know. That's why I don't think abortive mothers should be allowed to own the persons of their fetal children.
Unfortunately abortive mothers are often irresponsible though and thus often require state and/or church intervention to ensure that they do not misbehave.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
The WOMEN who choose abortion own their own person, and this means controlling what happens to it. :)
Being a "mother" takes far more than getting pregnant, I can say from experience. :)
eljagg01 2 years ago
Well unless of course it happens to conflict with someone elses person. Obviously her rights end where her child's begins. :)
And I meant a mother in biological terms. :)
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
And you've yet to put forth a case for a "right" to live off of and by the efforts and physical toll of another party. Good luck with that. ^_^
eljagg01 2 years ago
I don't need to. The right to life for human beings is primary. After that point it may happen to be the case that a human being may find him or herself in various situations -including being in a state of living off another.
However these are merely externals to what they are, and what they are is the cause of their rights. So I really don't see how peripherals like ones being unborn are relevant to intrinsic rights that one has.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Don't like abortions? Don't get one!
demon515 2 years ago
Just like "don't like murders? don't murder"? (but allow others their choice to murder...)
nahbios 2 years ago
Abortion is NOT muurder.
demon515 2 years ago
Perfectly analogous. There IS no right to end the life of another, just as there IS no right to live off someone against that person's will. :)
eljagg01 2 years ago
Against slavery? Don't buy one!
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
All right, I am pro-life but I don't regard my pro-life view as being derived from religion. However, if it is necessary to mix religion with politics to get rid of abortion then so be it. If that many people are in favor of abortion for their own selfish reasons then they DON'T DESERVE to live in a secularly based society.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
Excuse me but how the hell can you start preaching what is right and wrong, its least of all your decision, and mixing relgion and politics is the basis for a War. Your the selfish one!!!
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"Excuse me but how the hell can you start preaching what is right and wrong,"
Any rational being can do that.
"its least of all your decision,"
Why not? I mean if we are going to be into making capricious decisions about others lives (ie the choice to murder a kid in abortion) then why can't I make decisions for abortive mothers? Afterall they are too stupid to make their own decisions by themselves anyway.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Abortion is not murder, and you can't make judgements like that about women that have abortions, do you know every single one of them in person? I can without a doubt say you do not! That is a rather polemic statement to make!!
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"Abortion is not murder,"
That statement doesn't make any sense in light of what an abortion does to a fetal child.
"and you can't make judgements like that about women that have abortions, do you know every single one of them in person?"
Sure I can. I don't need to know a murderer personally to know that they are morally reprehensible.
" I can without a doubt say you do not!"
That's fine with me, because knowing a murderer personally isn't really relevant when judging them.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Women who abort are not murder's.
Abortion is terminating a pregnancy at the stage of when the pregnancy is a foetus not a child so that statement is pointless.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"Abortion is terminating a pregnancy at the stage of when the pregnancy is a foetus not a child so that statement is pointless."
What? A fetal child is a child all the way through the pregnancy. That's not religious belief that's just science. A child is a juvenile of the human species and fetal children are not adult organisms of the human species so they must be juvenile members of the human species (ie. they are children)
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
i meant pro* not pri
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
Im doing a report on an investigation into why religion is used in a pro life arguement against abortion? could anyone that is either pri life/religious or can think of any reasons let me know why they or know why religion is used in an arguement against abortion, as i see it as how can you inflict your religious views on someone else who may have different views as you.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
its not a matter of imposing ur views on someone. I can tell you from Christian & Catholic teaching that God says to choose life, deuteronomy & also in the 10 commandments, thou shall not kill. This religion professes the truth, & truth is that life begins @ conception, truth backed up by science, because life cant begin at any other time. Life is sacred and should be protected no matter how old or how small you are. If u need a reference, check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church online.
gabinchis 3 years ago
I was christened a catholic and I went to a catholic school and I was brought up by strict Catholics, I can understand what you saying and I respect your views but I do not agree with them I believe life begins at birth and I have read the bible and I personally think religion is a matter of opinion not fact.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
Just because it says in this "rule book" if you like that life is sacred etc,
Just because it says in the bible God says.... does not mean he does as how can you base your whole life around one book with no proof to back it up, and I don't believe you can use science and religion in the same argument because they contradict each other.
And just because the catholic religion does not agree with abortion does not mean they have the right to tell the whole world that its wrong or right.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
I believe its down to an individual and the situation they are in at the time
I do not believe you can judge people as a whole and it also says in the bible "thou shall not judge others" and you should le judging to God.
And you say all life is sacred, so is a murderers life sacred, a rapist, Hitler?
Can't you understand that I and others may have a different view on life to you? and can't you respect my opinion like I respect yours?
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
I do not tell other people how to live their life so i believe that others shouldn't either.I believe its down to an individual and the situation they are in at the time
I do not believe you can judge people as a whole and it also says in the bible "thou shall not judge others" and you should le judging to God.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
You must be vegetarian then? Life begins even before conception, actually, does this make masturbation murder?
Not that your personal religious beliefs have anything to do with everyone else's moral and legal rights in the first place. :)
eljagg01 3 years ago
I was brought up in a Catholic Family I went to a Catholic Primary and secondary school and it also says in the bible that "thou shall not judge" therefore those who are pro life should not judge thos who have abortion as it is Gods decision and it also says that humans were created in Gods image so those who insult women who have abortions are insulting God's creation and God.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"says in the bible that "thou shall not judge" "thos who have abortion as it is Gods decision"
Yes but if you recall in the very next verse after it says not the judge it says "you will judge a tree by its fruit." The intent of the passage was not to say "don't judge" but not the judge hypocritically.
"those who insult women who have abortions are insulting God's creation and God."
Making factual judgments isn't insulting. Besides what do abortive mothers do to God's creation? They kill it.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
your just twisting everything i say, and these are not factual judgements they are your personal opinion, why can't you understand that you can't inflict your views upon others
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"your just twisting everything i say, and these are not factual judgements they are your personal opinion,"
No scientific facts are not only personal opinion. You have the two confused. I can back up everything I have to say with biology.
"why can't you understand that you can't inflict your views upon others"
LOL Who says I can't? All rational discussion proceeds by people asserting their views as the truth.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Well its a bit pointless as no ones going to listen, thats a very intellegent reply by the way, just shows how capable you are of a proper debate.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"your not going to change my mind"
I figured as much. "I've done enough research to make my own mind"
My suspicion is that you have not done research but are merely holding your position because you had one. Not to point fingers, but I have had enough of these conversations to smell this out when a conversation goes a certain way. The people involved usually get technical about terms used and less about substance because they are hiding behind excuses. Am I right? did you get one?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
For your information i have not had one so your wrong, I know of people who have. and yes i have done enough research and your opinion or "suspcions" don't matter to me.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"yes i have done enough research and your opinion or "suspcions" don't matter to me."
Very well. I only say based on past experiences. Now let me ask you. Has your research uncovered when human life begins?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Yes and it begins at birth.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
Hmm no, you need research some biology. A distinct human organism begins when you have a being with it's own genetic identity. This is at fetilization not birth. If you doubt this just look up world reknowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune on the topic. It's a biological fact that it begins at fertilization. Besides this notion that it begins at birth has the addtional problem that during prenatal surgery the fetal child is sometimes removed temporarily which confuses the notion of birth.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
No I do not to research anything in biology, Human life begins at birth, there is potential for human life before that as it has the same dna as a human being hence the name foetus- but its the same as saying a cell or bacteria
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"No I do not to research anything in biology,"
You should because that is highly relevant to the issue.
"Human life begins at birth,"
Where did you come across that notion? Because it's wrong. You can have a fetal child who is temporarily removed for surgery and then placed back in. Thus he is not a person a person and not a person again. That doesn't make sense.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I have done enough research and every biology book I've read or lecturer in biology I have spoken says human life begins at birth. It does make sense.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"every biology book I've read or lecturer in biology I have spoken says human life begins at birth."
I don't know what to say. Every biology book I have read as well as the opinions of many scientists who deal with the matter say the opposite. Perhaps it's a matter of equivocation. How exactly are we defining human life here?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
BLA BLA BLA...
madmax10101 2 years ago
Yeah well considering that Abortion is illegal in Ireland I don't really have to explain myself to you.
I thought it would be a nice courtesy. But since you don't want to listen fine.
Abortion is illegal in Ireland. HAHA!!
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"It does make sense."
Well that's the thing I don't think it does. The fetal child is not the same organism as the mother. So if it exists as alive yet does not the same as any other organism what is it? It has to be it's own organism.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I couldn't care less what you think if I'm honest, and its a foetus not fetal child.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"I couldn't care less what you think if I'm honest, and its a foetus not fetal child."
I couldn't care less what you think if I'm honest, and its a fetal child not a foetus.
Your quibbling over the terms used demonstrates that you are hiding behind them. You say fetus I say fetal child but they both refer to the same thing. And in the end that is what matters from a strictly logical point of view.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
lol Actually I say "Foetus" not "fetus" as I am English not American lol and your doing exactly the same
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
Thank you.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
No they do not kill it because it is still a foetus not a child
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"No they do not kill it because it is still a foetus not a child"
But remember? It is, because a fetal child is a juvenile organism of the human species. Therefore it is by definition a child.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
The correct scientific definition is foetus not a child .
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
I said "fetal child" not child. You're correct that the correct definition USED in science is fetus, but that DOES NOT imply that it's the correct term for ETHICAL discussion. When used in ETHICS "fetus" is dehumanizing and carries an anti-fetocentric bigotry It makes the fetal child sound like a thing not a who.
To analogize if I said "terminate a homo sapiens with a lead projectile" I would be SCIENTIFICALLY accurate. But that doesn't convey the same moral sense as "shoot someone with a gun."
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Actually its foetus and the term is not dehumanizing, it is a scientific fact of what it is at that stage. and either way your wasting your time here because I've done enough research to make my own mind up about the subject of termination and your not going to change my mind on that matter.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"Actually its foetus and the term is not dehumanizing,"
Yes it is because it makes the fetal child sound like a thing rather than a who.
"scientific fact of what it is at that stage."
No that's the TERM used to relay a scientific fact. The science is not in dispute, the LANGUAGE is. If I were to say "terminating a homo sapiens with a lead projectile" that would be a scientific fact and a scientifically accurate way to say it. But it would be more dehumanizing than "murder someone with a gun."
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I find it very hard to believe that the term foetus is dehumanizing. and also what makes humans so important? I ask that because the way you talk is as if you think humans are superior to every other living organism.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"I find it very hard to believe that the term foetus is dehumanizing."
Well we have different experiences I guess.
"and also what makes humans so important?you think humans are superior to every other living organism. "
Um... Yeah. That's because humans unlike other species have evolved to the point where we can Platonize. This makes us superior to other animals.
As to other organisms I can not say. There may be other intelligent life in the universe that we would be equal to.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
It doesn't make us superior as we evolved from such animals, yes we are more advanced but not superior.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"yes we are more advanced but not superior."
More advanced beings also have evolved more advanced values systems, as values systems are also the product of evolution. Hence "superiority" is merely the values based equivalent of "advanced." And we can therefore understand that we are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom because our more evolved values conceptions tell us so.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Superior basically means you think you better then another for whatever reason it does not mean advanced.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"Superior basically means you think you better then another for whatever reason it does not mean advanced."
Well no the reason is that our idea of superiority comes from our advanced evolutionary state. They're really just the same thing. The only difference is that "superior" has a value connotation to it whereas "advanced" just means advanced evolutionarily.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Well my idea of superiotity is obviously different from yours.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
Apparently. Wittgensteinian impasse LOL
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"there is potential for human life before that as it has the same dna as a human being hence the name foetus- but its the same as saying a cell or bacteria"
Hmm except that it has it's own separate DNA and a complete set of it. Hence it is a separate organism. The difference between the fetal child and bacteria is that the bacteria does not belong to an intelligent species whereas the fetal child has latent intelligence, no different from a sleeping person who's intelligence is also latent.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
a foetus is not a child so therefore not a fetal child, that simply does not make sense.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"a foetus is not a child so therefore not a fetal child, that simply does not make sense. "
As I told you before, "fetus" is not appropriate for ethical discussion. It makes the fetal child appear to be less than it is: a juvenile person. (which it is of course because it is a juvenile member of an intelligent species)
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Well the real reason is because you a head crab zombie mwhahaha lol
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
Well that's a really rational comment, now isn't it?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
lol which comment is that replying to, if its the one above lol, its a joke, you obviously don't use the internet much.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
i was brought up in the same way and i guess they forgot to mention to you the part in the bible where it says, thou shall not kill. theres a HUGE difference between recognizing that a certain action is wrong and whether a person feels sorry or not about their actions committed. judging their feelings would be wrongful. but if you see someone killing another, you know thats wrong.
gabinchis 2 years ago
for your information I have read that, and yes you would know its wrong if you witnessed a murder however but there is a difference between knowing something is wrong and judging them for it.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
I'm sorry but I can judge a murderer as having done wrong as well. It wouldn't make sense to judge an action with imputing a moral status to the actor of that action.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Sorry that was supposed to be "without imputing" not "with imputing."
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Actually I haven't seen religion used in arguments against abortion very frequently. I've always been pro-life and I've never used religion based arguments nor have most all of the other pro-lifers I know.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
On almost every social networking site I've seen. I've seen pro lifers use religion as the basis for the arguements As well as the ones I know in person I can say the majoirty of them do.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"and mixing relgion and politics is the basis for a War."
Yes but that is good sometimes. Depending on the war it may be in the national interest, in which case religion provides an excellent means to promote it. Just look up "God is on our side" and "Starship Troopers" in a youtube search. :) "Your the selfish one!!!"
Really? Intriguing? Please elaborate on this.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Ok Which wars are good then? have you ever studied about wars?for example the first world war and what actually went on and not just the battlefield. And yes you are the selfish ones because your the ones that wants too take away a womens rights and choices.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"Ok Which wars are good then?"
Well the civil and revolutionary wars for example are good wars that used religion to motivate them.
"And yes you are the selfish ones because your the ones that wants too take away a womens rights and choices. "
This is a non sequiter. How does wanting to take away an illegitimate right selfish?
For example if I wanted to take away a slave-owners "right" to own slaves that would be justified and not selfish. So would you mind explaining this accusation better?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
You cannot compare slave owners with women who have terminations, termination of a pregnancy is not illegal, well not where I'm from anyway. And why exactly were those wars good, how can you say war is good yet abortion is wrong, because in wars thousands if not millions die, is that acceptable? you could also argue that war and abortion are just methods of controlling the population.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
"You cannot compare slave owners with women who have terminations, termination of a pregnancy is not illegal,"
It doesn't make any sense to argue that the two are different by saying that abortion is legal, because slavery was also legal.
"And why exactly were those wars good, how can you say war is good yet abortion is wrong,"
Well the civil war freed the slaves and the revolutionary war freed America from Britain. Those are both good outcomes I would think. Yes?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"On almost every social networking site I've seen. I've seen pro lifers use religion as the basis for the arguements As well as the ones I know in person I can say the majoirty of them do."
That is strange because that has not been my experience. Most pro-lifers I know are religious but do not use religious arguments when talking about abortion.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
How is that strange, it is my experience and experiences of many people I know.
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
I don't know I guess we have very different experiences then.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Exactly therefore it isn't strange its just different from yours
kittykat19892007 2 years ago
Perhaps, it just seemed a little odd I guess. I've hardly ever run into it.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Even if the fertilised egg/embryo looks like a blob, isn't that how we all look at that stage? This ain't a beauty contest! :-p
nahbios 3 years ago
You crack me up. No one else has a sense of humor about this. :D
eljagg01 3 years ago
Thanks...I guess?
nahbios 3 years ago
Its not what they look like, its about its development at that stage or shall i say lack of.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
i'm irish and pro choice i want abortion to be safe legal free and rare in ireland the church should let women have a say in what happens to their own bodies
austenbrontefan 3 years ago
I think Abortion should be legal in Ireland, and i don't think the church should have really any say in it, would people rather "diy" abortions if those who cannot afford to go abroad for one.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
There is a lot of invective floating around in here....so what I would say is this: don't do to somebody else what you don't want done to yourself.
I think a lot of these pro-abortion sentiments are down to arrogance and aggression, that is to say, women have or want abortions, simply because it is their "right".
For a start, it is not their "right". There is a difference between a "right" on one behalf and a "power" on the other behalf.
OrthodoxSteel 3 years ago 3
Are you basically saying that us who are pro choice are pro abortion because that is not the case.
I believe a women has a right to what happens to her body and I understand some people including your self will disagree with me, but what I don't understand is why can't we come to agreement, its simple those who don't agree don't have one and leave alone those who do have them.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
But - and I'm not trying to be a smart alek - a baby isn't part of the mother's body: it's a separate entity.
nahbios 3 years ago
Well its certainly leaching of the mother's body or in a polite way living of the mother's body.
kittykat19892007 3 years ago
Haven't we all done that in the first nine months of our lives? ;-)
nahbios 3 years ago