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

Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Gee Cee said:

I am not a hypocrite. As many on this forum will testify, I am just as bothered about those who have been born. Especially if they choose to ride in the TT races!

You ask "what am I prepared to do about it"? Well I'm sorry, but I do not understand the question. What is this 'IT' that you want me to do something about?

 

Your posting seems to indicate that you feel a mistake has been made in changing the law, and that you feel aggrieved at having to contribute financially to the service that is going to be provided - through your taxes. I would assume therefore that you would be happy to state that you would be willing to pay more to provide care that would reduce the number of abortions required, and, while we're on for saving lives, that you're also lobbying your MHK to stop sending your taxes to the UK government to pay for military actions on people you'll never know, and that you're happy to pay more so your local hospital is not so poorly managed innocent people are dying through neglect? If you're outraged at abortion, why are you not outraged at all the other failure to protect life that is done with your taxes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was you that raised the question of cost, not me. You did so at 10:09AM on Monday.

Yes - I do feel that a mistake has been made. A very grave mistake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 12:09 PM, Gee Cee said:

So having got themselves into "very difficult circumstances". These people then expect Joe Public to foot the bill for sorting the mess out.

Absolutely unbelievable.

 

I never stated that I had not mentioned costs. I stated that you appeared to be aggrieved, which I think is correct. 

You appear to be aggrieved at this, but you still have said nothing on the taxes you pay which are used to kill other people. That's hypocrisy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 12:09 PM, Gee Cee said:

So having got themselves into "very difficult circumstances". These people then expect Joe Public to foot the bill for sorting the mess out.

Absolutely unbelievable.

 

Complaining about the cost of abortion to the public (whilst objecting to abortion), but not saying you're prepared to pay to help reduce the need for abortions is also hypocrisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have already said, it is you that is obsessed with cost. Not me.

You have now earned a well deserved place on my 'Ignore List'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If cognitive dissonance is preventing you from proposing an explanation as to why you're concerned with abortion, but not concerned with the lives of other humans effected by the society you live in, or why this is not hypocrisy, then the ignore list is probably for the best.

I'm not obsessed with cost. I am 'obsessed' with the fact that we appear to be heading towards a model of society where we do not care for each other - which is a significant issue with regards to abortion. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gee Cee said:

As I have already said, it is you that is obsessed with cost. Not me.

You have now earned a well deserved place on my 'Ignore List'.

GC joins manxy on the Ignore Signalling list.-_-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think I inferred that the definition of life was being considered by law makers did I? I would assume law makers (at least those who are doing the technical drafting) are fully aware that they are dealing with the termination of human life, why would they need to consider the point any further? There is no suspect logic. As with any scientific theory, Schrödinger's definition of life could be (and would be) replaced or upgraded at any time if a better version were proposed based on reliable evidence. At the moment it hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, so the scientific definition of life is as stated. This has absolutely no relevance to whatever ethical position anyone may choose to take, it's just a scientific fact. Human life starts when a group of human cells which are distinct from either parent begins to maintain it's own order, at the cost of increasing disorder outside of itself. Implantation is irrelevant. The facts don't force any logical person to draw any particular ethical conclusion, they're just facts. 

OK, well I think when life begins is crucial to this discussion and I'd hope that lawmakers will also have taken this into account. Whether you originally inferred anything on these points does not change my view on either point.

If, for instance, life is regarded to have started at the same time as pregnancy, the thorny issue of whether devices or chemicals that specifically prevented implantation could be considered as abortion (or not) can be challenged.

You said

Quote

For any definition to be reliable it must be applicable universally. 

I agree.

So how does Schrödinger's definition of life apply to in vitro "life"? It wasn't around but we need to modify now to remain universally applicable.

Edited by ballaughbiker
grammar, punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You may think that a reasonable definition of pregnancy is implantation. The standard medical definition disagrees with you (as do I). I don't see what difference it makes anyway. The word 'pregnant' is as irrelevant as the word 'baby' - they're simply not reliable terms for any logical discussion. 

Well I agree that the oft manipulated misdescription of baby should be questioned but how can you say that whether or not the potential mother is pregnant or not is irrelevant?

On implantation, significant changes occur which can be demonstrated scientifically. Without those changes (and without implantation too) the blastocyst dies anyway as do the millions per day worldwide that do not implant for all sorts of reasons unrelated to contraception.

If they don't implant, the potential mother is not pregnant. If they do she is from that moment. It's a crucial point imo. 

This is why I think the beguiling, simple but faulty principle that "life begins at conception" should be replaced by life begins at implantation (in other words at the commencement of pregnancy).

I realise is inconvenient for anti abortionists but because in vitro fertilisation can demonstrate how conception can occur without pregnancy, many of the old definitions that have been wheeled out on this subject for decades are now subject to alternative opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Roger is 100% correct. The units that are going to be asked to handle this are the same units that are already screwed to the floor. It's already public information, (virtually) nobody cares. This was the real tragedy of the entire local debate in my opinion. It seemed to be highly focused on the conflict with almost no consideration for the reality of what is happening to the people who we're going to expect to deliver the victory. 

I agree with a lot of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 December 2018 at 9:41 PM, Gee Cee said:

It was you that raised the question of cost, not me. You did so at 10:09AM on Monday.

Yes - I do feel that a mistake has been made. A very grave mistake.

 

Maybe you Peter Murcott, Jonathan Stansfield, Stuart Nelson, Chris Robershaw can offer the "collection from the flock to assist" after all the statute books decry that the Bishop must be part of the law making process which you Religitards regardless of club colours defer to, it's the same CEO (allegedly no proof yet offered) The biggest Religitard sits in Government by statute and is regularly defeated, an oft forgetten fact when trying to change things in yours and the Middle Eastern fairy tale Princes favour which 100% of the time suits your agenda.

 

Edited by Mr Helmut Fromage
Lott and his daughters - hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

So how does Schrödinger's definition of life apply to in vitro "life"? It wasn't around but we need to modify now to remain universally applicable.

The basic definition of life - the maintenance of a highly ordered state - is universal. It applies the same to all forms of life, in all situations - that's why it works. If an entity is maintaining it's own order, if it is resisting decay (as the second law of thermodynamics would ordinarily require) then it is alive. In vitro, in vivo, top of everest, bottom of the ocean, down the back of the sofa, it doesn't matter. An entity is either using energy to maintain order (life) or it isn't (not life).

9 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

Well I agree that the oft manipulated misdescription of baby should be questioned but how can you say that whether or not the potential mother is pregnant or not is irrelevant?

On implantation, significant changes occur which can be demonstrated scientifically. Without those changes (and without implantation too) the blastocyst dies anyway as do the millions per day worldwide that do not implant for all sorts of reasons unrelated to contraception.

If they don't implant, the potential mother is not pregnant. If they do she is from that moment. It's a crucial point imo. 

This is why I think the beguiling, simple but faulty principle that "life begins at conception" should be replaced by life begins at implantation (in other words at the commencement of pregnancy).

I realise is inconvenient for anti abortionists but because in vitro fertilisation can demonstrate how conception can occur without pregnancy, many of the old definitions that have been wheeled out on this subject for decades are now subject to alternative opinion.

The technicalities of when someone actually becomes 'pregnant' is not relevant as a point of debate in relation to abortion, because the life that is terminated is not defined by the status of the parent. The difference between an early abortion and contraception which prevents implantation is nil in terms of the life that has been terminated. The fact that you have said the blastocyst 'dies' anyway if not implanted proves the point - how can a blastocyst die if it is not alive?

Sperm and egg are not independent living things. They do not maintain their own order. They are effectively part of the parents. They have no potential future beyond their intended purpose. If that purpose is not met there is no more effect to the parent from which they came than if they lost a hair or a toenail clipping. From the moment of conception a new entity is created, which in the normal course of things does have a future. Uninterrupted that entity could go on to live for decades. Physiologically speaking that is where we all began. If you wanted to split hairs you could say that the new life begins to maintain it's 'own' order at the point of maternal to zygotic transition, which is effectively when the new entity takes control of itself. This is a relatively long time before implantation.

Conception can occur without pregnancy. A conception that happens in vitro is still 'human life', which is why there are strict international codes on how long that life can be kept in vitro. Currently 14 days (which is usually around the time of implantation). Experiments have managed to achieve implantation in vitro. There is no alternative definition of life which would allow you to reclassify a zygote or blastocyst and not reclassify a whole host of other clearly living organisms at the same time. The difference is a zygote will go on to become a recognisable human. 

My point is we would hopefully do a much better job of caring for the people who need help if we acknowledged the facts.  

  

 

Edited by maynragh
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this whole life begins argument really weird.  Life doesn't begin.  Life started 3 or so billion years ago and has continued since then.  It doesn't start, you just have living tissue which maintains homeostasis for a certain time in a given environment.  Change the environment or leave things too long and homeostasis will stop, maintain the environment, or change it is a certain way and it will continue.

That is true with a sperm, an egg, a fertilized egg, a morula, a blastocyst, an implanted embryo, a new born baby, or a 90 year old.  They are all simply living tissue undergoing homeostasis. 

Some human tissues have special status, others don't - the legal and ethical reasons for this are highly complex and aren't logical or cut and dried.  They are political, sociological and highly contested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chinahand said:

I find this whole life begins argument really weird.  Life doesn't begin.  Life started 3 or so billion years ago and has continued since then.  It doesn't start, you just have living tissue which maintains homeostasis for a certain time in a given environment.  Change the environment or leave things too long and homeostasis will stop, maintain the environment, or change it is a certain way and it will continue.

That is true with a sperm, an egg, a fertilized egg, a morula, a blastocyst, an implanted embryo, a new born baby, or a 90 year old.  They are all simply living tissue undergoing homeostasis. 

Some human tissues have special status, others don't - the legal and ethical reasons for this are highly complex and aren't logical or cut and dried.  They are political, sociological and highly contested.

I agree. The problem is our current legal framework and social structure provides protection and care to some life and not others in a most illogical way. We classify life by the code which directs it, and then grade those codes to suit our needs. It's not logical, but how else can we improve equality than by being truthful about these facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...