Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

maynragh

Regulars
  • Content Count

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

311 Excellent

About maynragh

  • Rank
    MF Addicted

Recent Profile Visitors

776 profile views
  1. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    I think I've been fairly clear, I have no problem with the reality that termination happens and always will - and have never said it is a deadly crime. I have a problem with the fact we do virtually nothing to help women avoid it. I think ignoring the facts is part of that problem. You can disagree. That's fair enough. If I've got it wrong, what do you think we should be doing to help improve the situation for women and reduce the need for abortions?
  2. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    I thought I was on the ignore list? Lol. Yeah. Right.
  3. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    You wouldn't be walking away from a question you cannot answer would you? I know how strongly you feel about that. You're not terminating it. So what are you doing to it? Very simple question.
  4. maynragh

    Mallett's Mallet

    School
  5. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    Please explain what you think you do to it then, as you've already said it 'dies'.
  6. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    OK, so you don't terminate it?
  7. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. Here it is again. What is the difference in your opinion between terminating a life, and terminating a 'potential life'?
  8. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    OK, so we're going to call this entity a 'potential life'. What is the difference in your opinion between terminating a life, and terminating a 'potential life'?
  9. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    OK. Rather than go round the merry-go-round again... A simple question. If the group of cells which exist before implantation are not a human life, what are they? They're carrying and acting under a unique human genetic code (not that of either parent), and they have the same basic structure as other things we would call life. So what are they?
  10. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    Duplicate post. Sorry.
  11. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    You haven't explained how this has any consequence to the physiological process happening inside someone - as you questioned. Pregnancy is clearly not the start of 'life' in a universal sense because there are uncountable living things around right now that have never experienced the process of pregnancy at all. Clearly what you are trying to do is create a definition for life that fits your position by being unique to humans. That's fair enough, I understand why, but it cannot be said to be 'factual' as you claimed for the reasons already discussed. I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that fertilisation is not observable, can you explain that further? I think a person is pregnant when they are carrying an embryo or foetus. I'm not sure what the confusion is. You're clearly struggling with the basic methodology of forming a scientific theory (such as - what is life?), so why don't we come at this from the other direction. Why don't you give me the criteria by which you are defining that new life is commenced at implantation. What do you think changes at the point of implantation? Please be specific. The most broadly applicable scientific definition of life is based on the ideas presented by Erwin Schrödinger in 1943 / 44. This definition relies on the second law of thermodynamics - or the ability of life to maintain order or resist decay by using energy. If accepted it means that anything after fertilisation is a new version of life. I'm happy to discuss alternative definitions. http://www.whatislife.ie/downloads/What-is-Life.pdf
  12. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    You haven't explained how this has any consequence to the physiological process happening inside someone - as you questioned. Pregnancy is clearly not the start of 'life' in a universal sense because there are uncountable living things around right now that have never experienced the process of pregnancy at all. Clearly what you are trying to do is create a definition for life that fits your position by being unique to humans. That's fair enough, I understand why, but it cannot be said to be 'factual' as you claimed for the reasons already discussed. I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that fertilisation is not observable, can you explain that further? I think a person is pregnant when they are carrying an embryo or foetus. I'm not sure what the confusion is. You're clearly struggling with the basic methodology of forming a scientific theory (such as - what is life?), so why don't we come at this from the other direction. Why don't you give me the criteria by which you are defining that new life is commenced at implantation. What do you think changes at the point of implantation? Please be specific.
  13. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    "The definition of the commencement of pregnancy has no consequence to the presence of a new life or not? Really?" Yes, of course. If you can explain how us deciding what the definition of 'being pregnant' is will have any effect on the empirically observable physiological process taking place inside someone I will be very impressed. Can you? "2) It ? starts at conception - no because that means millions of hosts become "pregnant" every day only to then become non- pregnant 6 or so days later, should implantation naturally fail = natural 'abortion'." You have not given any logical explanation as to why this is not the case - other than the fact it doesn't suit your argument. I have given you the facts as to why it is the case. "The other inconsistency is that we don't worry about these millions of 6 day "pregnancies" (of course not, it would be ludicrous), yet we chose to think differently should the same result happen by, say, IUD or "morning after pill". That inconsistency, or the 6 day pregnancies don't come into the discussion if pregnancy is considered to start at implantation." You are claiming this is an inconsistency by trying to claim that 'we' think differently about a natural failure to implant vs. one caused by an intervention. I don't think differently about them at all. The only difference is one is cause by a direct external intervention and one isn't. I have expressed no difference of opinion on that point anywhere.
  14. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    I have not said that you have dreamed up a new definition. I have said you are using a definition which suits your position and which is not the most commonly used in the medical profession - both of which are true. I have also said I think the point is irrelevant - because it is not something anyone can give you a verifiable objective answer for, and it has no consequence to the presence of a new life or not. The simple answer to your question is that by the most commonly used definition a person is 'pregnant' while they are carrying an embryo or foetus. Nobody can give you a definitive number of days implantation might take to succeed or fail because it will vary significantly from person to person. Are you trying to define a point where the chances of implantation are unlikely but the blastocyst is still technically alive? I'm not sure how this helps. If you are trying to define pregnancy by the status of the embryo or foetus (alive or dead) again I don't think anyone can help you because there is no objective answer. If the foetus dies at 40 weeks is the mother still pregnant while carrying it after it has passed?
  15. maynragh

    Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    Your approach appears to be based upon avoiding facts you don't like, which is exactly the criticism you laid at others. I think we are agreed abortion is always going to be taking place - illegal or not, with care or without - and that we as a society should do all we can to ensure we do care for those who need it, and do all we can to reduce the need through care - on the basis that it is a process which should be avoided if possible. Where we disagree is on how best to achieve this. Your position appears to be based on the idea that the system as has been in place for many years in the UK for example, works because nobody is concerned about the moral implications of the process. My position is that the moral perspective is irrelevant because the practical problem is the UK model is demonstrably failing by it's own statistics, as there has been no significant reduction in the demand for abortion at any time since it was implemented. It has also been proven elsewhere and by focused efforts within the UK that such reductions are possible. The UK data makes it perfectly clear that the lack of any significant progress is basically the result of disinterest. So we condemn large numbers of women to cycles of unnecessary risk and potential trauma because it's too easy to ignore and we don't care. Please explain how your approach is entirely practical in this regard? You are aware that the definition you have chosen for pregnant is in contradiction with the standard medical definition as you have acknowledged with the measurement of the first trimester. You have tried to claim the WHO definition relies on other terms but have not said what they are. I don't think this is true, please provide a reference. The only term I can see is embryo - which as you know doesn't help you. You have also said there are "just as many definitions saying pregnancy starts on implantation as suggest it's at conception." I also don't think this is true from any reputable source. Please provide references. You have said "Differentiation changes a clump of around 50 cells into structures that can be recognised as human." This statement is clearly factually incorrect. Please define how these structures are recognised as human in a way that would not be possible for the clump of 50 cells you wish to start with. Your question as to what practical benefit there is to defining pregnancy as starting at implantation or conception reveals the problem with your thinking I feel. You are clearly determined to force the facts to fit your position. The problem is the facts don't care. It doesn't matter whether it helps anyone's argument, or creates a practical benefit, or helps someone feel better, or protects them from criticism - that is not how facts work. You can either prove something or you cannot. However if you choose to ignore facts you immediately weaken your position in the same way groups like A67 do. The facts they ignore are that the legality of abortion has been proven to have no effect on the number carried out, and may even increase it. If they were serious about stopping abortion they'd be campaigning for better care, not a legal approach which can never work. From my position I feel that being honest about the facts would help to encourage society to do more to help women, and as such I feel it is worth discussing those facts if there is clearly a misunderstanding - as seen here. That is the practical benefit if you will. On your final point, there is no bolstering the definition of life. As above, it's just a fact. It doesn't care what argument you're trying to win. The definition is based on the standard scientific methodology for any fact - that is it objective and verifiable via observation. It works as the definition for life because it works for everything in the same way. If it didn't do that it wouldn't be a standard definition. As already discussed, if you're trying to create your own definitions to bolster your position you may as well just start reading the bible.
×