Ireland's parliament approves 'life-saving' abortion

The baby is made up of both parent figures, but that's irrelevant in this case to the point I'm making.

 

No, because it points to the fact that the baby is different from a parasite. There are so many differences. :smt102 They are also not classified as a parasite. If you have an article from a creditable academic environment, I'd like to see it.

This is by the way a waste of time. I honestly don't think women are looking at the baby as a parasite. You may want to do that to fit your argument but biologist generally don't classify them as such.

 

Biologist may not classify them as parasites, but they are considered cellular life, as opposed to being considered human life and the way they function are akin to being a parasite since they do require a host to keep them alive. I don't see why you're so adamant to deny that. The conjecture is when you factor in the concept of value.

 

I am not saying that there are not similarities among almost any thing. I am simply saying that they are not parasites. Honestly, I could make similarities between bears and humans but a human a bear is not. It isn't a creditable argument as you can make comparisons to almost anything. At the end of the day, there is a line. That line is that a fetus is not classified as a parasite.

I'm not going to get dragged into the human life argument as there is not a universal human life definition even on an acdemic level. It is muddy.

 

A fetus isn't human either, so what's your point? It's closer to a parasite by an analogous terminology. Sorry that it's hard to comprehend, but that's the fact of life.

 

My point is that a fetus is not a parasite and that you can make a comparison between two entities of any organisms. A fetus is still not classified as a parasite. Meaning it is not a parasite. Again, I can compare a bear to a human. I can point out similarities to almost anything to make a point. It isn't a creditable point. We all know we can find similarities between almost any two things in the universe.

I'm not arguing that a fetus is human or not or that it qualifies as human life but that you are simply picking what you want to suit your argument.


We can have an argument about if a fetus is more likely to be human or parasite. Truth of the matter is DNA doesn't lie and we can ask FG about where she feels that it would be more likely to be filed under. She does have a PHD in biophysics/biochemistry but some how the fact that a fetus's dna is more closely matched to a human over any parasite on the planet is going to be a tough call.;-)

In DNA lies truth.

 

Generally, purely science does not consider a fetus a bonafide person until it can sustain life on its own. I think that point in the development will wary from scientist to scientis. You cant really call a fetus a parasite scientifically just because it can't sustain life on its own as a parasite is entirely foreign to the host body.

The line between science and religion is very intertwined in this and can't be separated for most people, even scientists. To me, pure scientifically, its not human life until it has a fully developed brain and nervous system (with fully, i mean, it will not develop further in utero) system, heart, and fully developed limbs. That is still fairly early on in the development. After that, it just get too dicey as we can't ask a fetus what it feels. And it is a human being before that. But calling a sack of undefined cells a human life, as a scientist. No. So it is not a life at conception scientifically. If want to call it that, due to religion, fine, but don't call it science.

That someone has to hemorrhage to death due to miscarriage, because pro life beliefs is utterly laughable and make no sense as it is totally against what they fight for, for the baby. Just bizzare and hypocritical IMO. Ireland is taking the pro life ideology way too far, so both mom and fetus died... I don't get how they justify that.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. Pro-lifers often want to side step the scientific part of reproduction, so it makes having a conversation on this topic pointless IMO. It is so incredibly sad that that woman had to die because she didn't have the right to make decisions about what happens to her own body. I've ready stories like that before and it's truly heartbreaking.

 

meh, I agree that it is not either scientifically but.....


I would ask you to classify the fetus as one or another if you had to but I see that you have some what of a definition of if all systems are go then it is human. And I believe that happens before the baby is out.

I do agree that crap happens. I wouldn't want people being on trial for a fetus that was doomed to never make it out.


Also, I don't think that was a pro life ideology but a pro-religion. You have to be for life. You are given what you are given. If only one can live, guess what someone has got to pick. Just my two cents on the pro life. Most pro life arguements are on the general platform that the mother is not in any danger outside of her usual screaming at her husband for what he left inside of her. lmao I kid I kid:mrgreen:

 

I used 'pro life' loosely but as it is based on religion.. Same thing. Ireland just took it and went too far. And I don't think most pro lifers in the USA would agree w letting that poor woman die

 

Whether a fetus is a person or not is irrelevant. It is a life, and given the chance to grow naturally, it will develop into what we call a "person." Besides "person" is not a scientific distinction anyway. Science distinguishes us as humans, and every human being alive today was once a "sack of undefined cells" and those cells, are human cells.

 

Nitpick all you want. This has nothing to do with my point.

 

This.

 

Prolifers are any of you foster parents?

 

You darn well know I have no children. give me ten years. I'm working on it.:smt081

 

But if you aren't taking these kids in why do you have an opinion?

 

Exactly.

More to point here.

 

Not speaking of the dude you quoted, but many pro-lifers are short sighted. They care about the fetus until its born. Once the baby's born, its on the mother to figure out how to make life work with a child she wasn't ready for. Thats the attitude I've noticed time and time again from many pro lifers.

 

George Carlin really stated it best.

[YOUTUBE]AvF1Q3UidWM[/YOUTUBE]

 

because ... I have one.


seriously, though, people are suppose to be responsible. Why do you think I don't have kids now? Got to get the money first. you dig!

I understand unplanned bundles of joy happen. That's why I am in support of that social net to assist people in getting a better education and/or strengthening adoption agencies.