100 meter exclusion zone

[Born Hunter 17,639]

2 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

We'll just have to respectfully disagree on this one my friend. Having been a supporting husband in three extremely difficult pregnancies, one child dangerously premature and two more that required life-saving surgery I'll always side with the health of the mother. I love my kids more than myself but to live in a world where I could have lost them all isn't one I want to live in.

As would I. I think we're getting beyond the "It's a right" argument now though? Now we're into quite specific situations and cases of saving the mother's life/health. I'm not absolutely either way on this. I don't believe it's a right or should be illegal or that terminating prenatal life is no ones business but the one responsible.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

12 minutes ago, scothunter said:

Look for a fire extinguisher lol

Tactical swerve, Scot!

The point of the exercise is to really look the circumstances and make a decision. Regardless of where any of the honourable gentlemen lean on this spectrum they'll all side with good old human beings because even they know that every circumstance is unique and that one standardised response isn't applicable.

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

As would I. I think we're getting beyond the "It's a right" argument now though? Now we're into quite specific situations and cases of saving the mother's life/health. I'm not absolutely either way on this. I don't believe it's a right or should be illegal or that terminating prenatal life is no ones business but the one responsible.

Agreed and despite my emotive use of language, it's where I stand on the matter. I'm referring the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. No uterus. No opinion.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

1 minute ago, ChrisJones said:

Tactical swerve, Scot!

The point of the exercise is to really look the circumstances and make a decision. Regardless of where any of the honourable gentlemen lean on this spectrum they'll all side with good old human beings because even they know that every circumstance is unique and that one standardised response isn't applicable.

An alternate way of looking at that is that a child has feelings, explicit emotions, loved ones and those than love back. The impact of that fire would be great and visable suffering. The 1500 embryos though?

I get the point, using the 'prolife' logic against them but I'd pose a counter thought experiment. Exact same situation, a crying child or 10 sedated children, which do you save? All life is equal on paper, but when we emotionally quantify suffering suddenly it ain't. I don't think that component can be dismissed.

[stumfelter 3,032]

31 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Question for the panel.

You're trapped in a fertility clinic. A fire breaks out and you can make one of two choices.

1. You can escape the building carrying 1500 fertilised embryos.
2. You can escape with the 5-year-old child who is trapped in the adjacent room.

You don't have time to do both.

Which do you pick?

 

Without a moment's hesitation option two. And just out of interest how do you make an orgasm last nine seconds? That's a complete fcuk for me including foreplay.?

[WILF 44,334]

4 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

An alternate way of looking at that is that a child has feelings, explicit emotions, loved ones and those than love back. The impact of that fire would be great and visable suffering. The 1500 embryos though?

I get the point, using the 'prolife' logic against them but I'd pose a counter thought experiment. Exact same situation, a crying child or 10 sedated children, which do you save? All life is equal on paper, but when we emotionally quantify suffering suddenly it ain't. I don't think that component can be dismissed.

You are going boss eyed here boys, you are talking about who do you save from a fire where as abortion is taking the 5 year old and the embryos TO the fire and chucking them on........

Now your reasons for chucking them on may be many and varied but that’s another argument 

Edited April 10, 2018 by WILF

[riohog 5,621]

8 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

An alternate way of looking at that is that a child has feelings, explicit emotions, loved ones and those than love back. The impact of that fire would be great and visable suffering. The 1500 embryos though?

I get the point, using the 'prolife' logic against them but I'd pose a counter thought experiment. Exact same situation, a crying child or 10 sedated children, which do you save? All life is equal on paper, but when we emotionally quantify suffering suddenly it ain't. I don't think that component can be dismissed.

it may well be a case of self survival. .im all right jack fk the rest

[Born Hunter 17,639]

Just now, WILF said:

You are going boss eyed here boys, you are talking about who do you save from a fire where as abortion is taken the 5 year and the embryos TO the fire and chucking them on........

Now your reasons for chucking them on may be many and varied but that’s another argument 

It's CJs clever (genuinely nearly gave him a like as I felt it was so good an argument) way of challenging the 'right to life' argument that is the foundation of the pro-life argument. The argument that all life is equal, even prenatal. His thought experiment attempts to show that prenatal life, embryonic at least, is not equal to an infant child's life.

It's good, I liked it. I just don't think it's the full picture, it doesn't consider suffering imo which is the cause of the apparent inequality in that thought experiment.

[jiggy 3,207]

11 hours ago, WILF said:

Mass slaughter in your own shores is everyone’s business.......or maybe I’m a bit old fashioned.

In certain circumstances like fatal foetal abnormality an abortion can be the best thing. There is cases of people with baby's missing the top of there heads or poorly developed kidneys or lungs due to the lack of fluid in the womb and will 1000 percent die shortly after birth. Why should any couple have to carry that baby full term and go through the torment of watching it die after 20 minutes and the suffering the child goes through aswell. Those people would do anything for a child and don't need some gobshite with a banner calling them a murderer when they are walking into a clinic during the worst period of their lives.

[ginger beard 4,652]

43 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Question for the panel.

You're trapped in a fertility clinic. A fire breaks out and you can make one of two choices.

1. You can escape the building carrying 1500 fertilised embryos.
2. You can escape with the 5-year-old child who is trapped in the adjacent room.

You don't have time to do both.

Which do you pick?

 

The 5 year old because if you can't have children naturally then you shouldn't have kids.

Sounds horrible but science shouldn't play any part in concieving.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

24 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

An alternate way of looking at that is that a child has feelings, explicit emotions, loved ones and those than love back. The impact of that fire would be great and visable suffering. The 1500 embryos though?

I get the point, using the 'prolife' logic against them but I'd pose a counter thought experiment. Exact same situation, a crying child or 10 sedated children, which do you save? All life is equal on paper, but when we emotionally quantify suffering suddenly it ain't. I don't think that component can be dismissed.

Again I agree but as I said we're looking at individual reactions to individual circumstances. Both are hypothetical and both have many different outcomes. It's exactly that pro-life logic because regardless of the individual stance of the matter life in all of its forms is triaged on an individual perspective and having a one size fits all options isn't helpful. Some see life at conception, others at [insert timeline here], but depending on where you are on that scale you will make the decision based on the perceived best outcome for all involved. We're human.

In answer to your alternate scenario, it would be as many as I could get out of the building before succumbing as I wouldn't hesitate to risk my own life or risk serious debilitating injury if I could ensure that just one of those kids could go and enjoy life. I also accept that some would go further or not and it will depend on their individual interpretation. Life is suffering.

13 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I just don't think it's the full picture, it doesn't consider suffering imo

That's partly it to. We're all arguing from a male perspective on a woman's condition. Who are we to sit in judgement when we couldn't possibly ever have the full picture? This is why I believe it's fundamentally not our call. No uterus...

Edited April 10, 2018 by ChrisJones
Typo

[Daniel cain 42,900]

22 minutes ago, ginger beard said:

if you can't have children naturally then you shouldn't have kids.

 

Wow gb that's a strange view to have imo..... What if for some reason yourself or partner couldn't conceive ???? There's people out there with alot of love to give a child, not on about rich cnuts that just 'buy' them and pairs of shirt lifterswith the stress me  and my Mrs went through trying to conceive we looked at the option of adoption ?I used to joke with the wife I wanted a little Chinese lad and call him Tong......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would of been called Tong Jones ???she wasn't impressed 

[jiggy 3,207]

I would be more critical of why a 5 year old is visiting a fertility clinic on her own. That's way to young and irresponsible to be thinking of starting a family. I say let her burn.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

21 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Again I agree but as I said we're looking at individual reactions to individual circumstances. Both are hypothetical and both have many different outcomes. It's exactly that pro-life logic because regardless of the individual stance of the matter life in all of its forms is triaged on an individual perspective and having a one size fits all options isn't helpful. Some see life at conception, others at [insert timeline here], but depending on where you are on that scale you will make the decision based on the perceived best outcome for all involved. We're human.

Where I'm at too, I think.

 

22 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

In answer to your alternate scenario, it would be as many as I could get out of the building before succumbing as I wouldn't hesitate to risk my own life or risk serious debilitating injury if I could ensure that just one of those kids could go and enjoy life. I also accept that some would go further or not and it will depend on their individual interpretation. Life is suffering.

I'm fairly sure you got the point so this is now redundant but I should probably have said, as with your thought experiment, only one option available. For me, I'd almost certainly save the crying child and leave the sedated to die. Because of the emotion and suffering component, not because I don't believe all children have a right to life therefore making saving the ten sedated most logical.

 

26 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

We're all arguing from a male perspective on a woman's condition. Who are we to sit in judgement when we couldn't possibly ever have the full picture? This is why I believe it's fundamentally not our call. No uterus...

I get that, I just think it's a fairly 'selective' logic. I mean should we not make judgements on other issues that won't now effect us directly? Say education, should only kids decide education policy? Should only soldiers decide when and who they wage war against?

As I said, I don't really buy that this is an issue that only effects mother's. There's a prenatal human involved in this too.

I do however accept that the mother is essentially the only one responsible for that prenatal human and as such if she really wants gone, there's f**k all that can be done about it. As I have said, it really can't be a right, but we have to be pragmatic.

[ginger beard 4,652]

23 minutes ago, Daniel cain said:

Wow gb that's a strange view to have imo..... What if for some reason yourself or partner couldn't conceive ???? There's people out there with alot of love to give a child, not on about rich cnuts that just 'buy' them and pairs of shirt lifterswith the stress me  and my Mrs went through trying to conceive we looked at the option of adoption ?I used to joke with the wife I wanted a little Chinese lad and call him Tong......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would of been called Tong Jones ???she wasn't impressed 

I never put that to be nasty but using science is a bit like playing god.it is just a small step away from designer babies.

 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I'm fairly sure you got the point so this is now redundant but I should probably have said, as with your thought experiment, only one option available. For me, I'd almost certainly save the crying child and leave the sedated to die. Because of the emotion and suffering component, not because I don't believe all children have a right to life therefore making saving the ten sedated most logical.

Fully understood and we were going off on a tangent as these subjects tend to do.

5 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

As I said, I don't really buy that this is an issue that only effects mother's. There's a prenatal human involved in this too.

I do however accept that the mother is essentially the only one responsible for that prenatal human and as such if she really wants gone, there's f**k all that can be done about it. As I have said, it really can't be a right, but we have to be pragmatic.

Agreed but IMHO it affects the women disproportionately to the men. If you look at this thread. The raging arguments in Congress. The theocratic arguments against abortion, all come from a male-dominated perspective and while there is a need for that perspective I feel that it's disproportionately over-represented.

It would be nice to see what a group of women would have to say on the matter and until then I've probably over-committed to a subject I hadn't really intended to!