Society/Culture The Abortion Thread

[JRoo]

IVF is not a clear cut issue hypothetically, but given that the current reality is that more often than not it involves the creation and throwing away of 'unfit' embryos; given that all fertilised embryos must be used (given the aforementioned opposition to throwing away lives); given that these multiple pregnancies often result in numerous failures; given that this leads to the killing of some of the lives created in order that the others stand a better chance of surviving...I do not believe it would be a wise decision to use it.

Are we going to be going through these one by one?

No they don't.

 

[clogged]

You're asking whether miscarriages should be treated as child abuse.

No, I'm not. I'm asking whether, given you consider the death of an embryo as the death of a human, they should be investigated like all deaths of humans are where the circumstances surrounding the death is unclear.

 

[The Speaker]

No they don't.

Read what's in the brackets - if I am opposed to throwing away embryos, then logically all of them must be used.

No, I'm not. I'm asking whether, given you consider the death of an embryo as the death of a human, they should be investigated like all deaths of humans are where the circumstances surrounding the death is unclear.

And as I've pointed out, you would be at best guessing, and for the most part would be dealing with things that were no fault of the parent.

 

[JRoo]

Read what's in the brackets - if I am opposed to throwing away embryos, then logically all of them must be used.

And as I've pointed out, you would be at best guessing, and for the most part would be dealing with things that were no fault of the parent.

I read what you wrote and you're wrong.

Not all fertilised embryo's must be used under IVF.

Couples can and do at the end of their cycle when they have successfully conceived with prior embryos, donated their remaining embryo's for IVF research which results in these embyro's being destroyed.

 

[The Speaker]

I read what you wrote and you're wrong.

Not all fertilised embryo's must be used under IVF.

Couples can and do at the end of their cycle when they have successfully conceived with prior embryos, donated their remaining embryo's for IVF research which results in these embyro's being destroyed.

I know this. It is still the destruction of embryos, which I oppose, therefore all the embryos must be used, which then poses other risks which often result in their loss as well.

 

[JRoo]

I know this. It is still the destruction of embryos, which I oppose, therefore all the embryos must be used, which then poses other risks which often result in their loss as well.

So you're against IVF as it can result in the destruction of embryo's?

 

[The Speaker]

So you're against IVF as it can result in the destruction of embryo's?

Yes.

 

[JRoo]

Yes.

Thats good of you now isn't it.

Let me guess you're a religious type aren't you?

 

[The Speaker]

Thats good of you now isn't it.

Let me guess you're a religious type aren't you?

I think that was fairly well established by my post on Christians in politics on the last page.

 

[JRoo]

I think that was fairly well established by my post on Christians in politics on the last page.

I think it was well established when you argued against AFL on in the Good Friday AFL thread.

Nice to know you want to impose your religious beliefs upon others there brother.

 

[clogged]

And as I've pointed out, you would be at best guessing, and for the most part would be dealing with things that were no fault of the parent.

It wouldn't be guessing - there are plenty of methods to determine the cause of miscarriage and whether liability for the miscarriage falls on the mother.

 

[The Speaker]

I think it was well established when you argued against AFL on in the Good Friday AFL thread.

Nice to know you want to impose your religious beliefs upon others there brother.

As I said in the Good Friday thread, I'm not that bothered by the what of Good Friday football, but the why. If it happens, it happens - but I don't have to support it.

It wouldn't be guessing - there are plenty of methods to determine the cause of miscarriage and whether liability for the miscarriage falls on the mother.

Of all the different causes of miscarriage, the only one that the mother can potentially be liable for are lifestyle related, which we have covered.

 

[JRoo]

As I said in the Good Friday thread, I'm not that bothered by the what of Good Friday football, but the why. If it happens, it happens - but I don't have to support it.

Of all the different causes of miscarriage, the only one that the mother can potentially be liable for are lifestyle related, which we have covered.

And as I said it nice to know you like to push your religious beliefs on others and are against a process; IVF that has since it's introduction over 30 years seen more than 100,000 babies born, and currently see's over 10,000 children born each year in Australia and NZ alone. But hey thats 100,000 people and 10,000+ per year who wouldn't be born if you had your way due to your opposition on your ignorant religious grounds to a process that has helped so many people.

 

[The Speaker]

And as I said it nice to know you like to push your religious beliefs on others and are against a process; IVF that has since it's introduction over 30 years seen more than 100,000 babies born, and currently see's over 10,000 children born each year in Australia and NZ alone. But hey thats 100,000 people and 10,000+ per year who wouldn't be born if you had your way due to your opposition on your ignorant religious grounds to a process that has helped so many people.

And it's seen many, many more killed in the search for the one most fit.

As I said before, hypothetically I'm not opposed to it, but given the reality of it today, whereby many lives are ended along the way, I cannot support it. If, one day, they are able to use IVF in a way that ensures the loss of no other lives on the way, I would not oppose it.

 

[JRoo]

And it's seen many, many more killed in the search for the one most fit.

As I said before, hypothetically I'm not opposed to it, but given the reality of it today, whereby many lives are ended along the way, I cannot support it. If, one day, they are able to use IVF in a way that ensures the loss of no other lives on the way, I would not oppose it.

Good on you thinking that due to your religious beliefs over 10,000 children per year shouldn't be born as they are conceived through a process you don't support on religious grounds! Who knows one day you might advance from the dark ages and join us in the 21st century.

 

[The Speaker]

Good on you thinking that due to your religious beliefs over 10,000 children per year shouldn't be born as they are conceived through a process you don't support on religious grounds! Who knows one day you might advance from the dark ages and join us in the 21st century.

It's the lives of probably 10x that number being ended that I don't support, as I said.

 

[JRoo]

It's the lives of probably 10x that number being ended that I don't support, as I said.

It's actually over 100,000 you don't believe should be alive today as they are conceived through a process you don't support because of you religious beliefs. I will look at my 2 daughters conceived through IVF and know that despite the ignorant beliefs of religious nut cases such as yourself, they have every right to be conceived and live a life due to this very scientific process.

 

[The Speaker]

It's actually over 100,000 you don't believe should be alive today as they are conceived through a process you don't support because of you religious beliefs. I will look at my 2 daughters conceived through IVF and know that despite the ignorant beliefs of religious nut cases such as yourself, they have every right to be conceived and live a life due to this very scientific process.

I think it absolutely great that you have been able to have two daughters through IVF. My opposition to IVF is, as I keep saying, due to the lives lost in the process.

 

[JRoo]

I think it absolutely great that you have been able to have two daughters through IVF. My opposition to IVF is, as I keep saying, due to the lives lost in the process.

Yet you don't think they should have been conceived and live a life along with 10,000+ others in Australia each year due to scientific process that helped them been conceived.

Thats big of you imposing your backwards religious beliefs on potentially 10,000+ children per year!

And I bet you hypocritically believe you're pro-life!

 

[The Speaker]

Yet you don't think they should have been conceived and live a life along with 10,000+ others in Australia each year due to scientific process that helped them been conceived.

Thats big of you imposing your backwards religious beliefs on potentially 10,000+ children per year!

And I bet you hypocritically believe you're pro-life!

I see you have no interest in actually reading what I am saying.

 

[JRoo]

ReachTel poll has 65.5% favouring Mike Baird over Gladys Berejiklian.

The poll also finds that 46.3% though O'Farrell should resign, vs. 34.3%


JRoo, The Speaker is entitled to hold whatever religious belief he wants so long as it isn't enforced on others. I suggest you drop the attack and return to the topic of the thread.

I believe the topic was raised by the speaker when he stated he was against IVF based upon his religious beliefs. Maybe you should direct your posts towards the religious nut case who thinks 10,000+ children per year shouldn't be born due to his opposition to IVF.

 

[JRoo]

I see you have no interest in actually reading what I am saying.

I read exactly what you stated, you're against 10,000+ children being born every year due to your religious opposition to IVF!

 

[The Speaker]

I read exactly what you stated, you're against 10,000+ children being born every year due to your religious opposition to IVF!

No, I'm against the many more children whose lives are destroyed in the process. As I have said repeatedly. Were those lives not lost, I would support it.

 

[JRoo]

No, I'm against the many more children whose lives are destroyed in the process. As I have said repeatedly. Were those lives not lost, I would support it.

No you don't want 10,000+ children born per year if they are conceived through a scientific process you don't support on religious grounds! Crazy ignorant stuff and as I said maybe one day you may evolve and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Based upon your views both of my daughters shouldn't be alive as they were only conceived through IVF.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I move any further debate about religion be moved to myriad of religious based threads and return to the topic at hand!