[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / hisrol / hqrs / leftpol / prchicas / tacos / tulpa / vg ]

/n/ - News

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 1 per post.

8chan News Board Ring: /pn/ - Politics and News - /politics/ - Politics

File: 18f52f0c205dc33⋯.jpg (608.52 KB, 964x1463, 964:1463, i_will_survive___07_by_bor….jpg)


While opinion polls show a comfortable lead for the pro-choice side in an upcoming referendum on abortion in Ireland, one set of figures indicates pro-life paid adverts are gaining more traction on Facebook.

On 25 May, Ireland will vote on whether to keep the 8th amendment to the country's constitution, which states that the life of a mother and an unborn baby are equal. It's the basis for Irish laws which make abortion illegal in all but life-threatening cases.

Initial polls - keeping in mind it's still early in the campaign - point towards a win for the pro-choice side. An Ipsos MRBI poll in January showed that 56% of 1,200 people sampled were in favour of repealing the amendment (the "yes" side in the referendum), while 29% were opposed.

Other recent polls show similar leads for "yes". If the pro-choice side wins, Irish women would be able to obtain an abortion until the twelfth week of pregnancy.



Or you could just stop being a degenerate whore


American fundamentalist trolls are on social media



Are those polls like the ones that said Hillery Clinton would win in a landslide?


>mother and unborn child lives are equal

Peak retardation, ireland should be nuked



Probably closer to the Australian fag vote where the polls were similar to this and no polled surprisingly well



>ireland should be nuked

or aborted?




>Be a woman

>Be told from a prepubescent age that pregnancy is a big thing

>Be warned from the age of about 12 that you want to be very certain before getting pregnant

>Have both private and public bodies provide you with highly effective contraceptives free of charge and no questions asked

>Still have a few hundred thousand women every year fucking up hard enough to end up with an unplanned pregnancy that they then demand the right to destroy at the taxpayers expense



File: 79c4ccb454cb1c5⋯.jpg (114.69 KB, 978x715, 978:715, 1371042096007.jpg)

Netanyahu. Polls were wrong.

Brexit. Polls were wrong.

Trump. Polls were wrong.

Why is anyone still paying attention to polls?

The only respondents are people who answer calls from unknown numbers.


This. Clearly an innocent is worth more than a failure.


i like abortion because it kills alot of niggers and is besides used more by retards than quality would-be parents but if roasties have the option to abort the child then it encourages them to whore about because if they get knocked up they're not responsible for a child



>This. Clearly an innocent is worth more than a failure.

sure, but for non religious people featus is just an innocent small clump of tissue, so that argument is relevant only for believers



If all negroids and jew/muslim semetics were aborted, the world would be at peace.



One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not religious beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the fusion of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well-studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.



What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else?

Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.

An organism is (1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.

This stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human organism is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

While, under some circumstances, human cells can assemble into primitive tissues and structures, under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is objective and based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence. Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

A neutral examination of the evidence establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.


To say that a zygote or embryo is a genetically distinct human organism (a human life) does not require religious doctrine or dogma; the scientific method can establish that.

But to say that a zygote or embryo is a mere clump of cells or tissue requires that ideological, philosophical, or political doctrine/dogma be given precedence over science.



Netanyahu and Trump was rigged by Netanyahu tbh




I am probably going to steal this verbatim as its the most eloquent summary of my own thoughts on the matter I've seen.

I spent a good 8 months looking this issue over seriously after the last election cycle in my country brought it up. I walked in with a weak pro-choice mindset, I walked out completely turned around. Like so many things, I realized, our legal system and state is entirely arbitrary in its willingness to dole out death. I now feel I genuinely understand the issue more than ever and don't see it as a tiresome waste of time when it's brought up in politics. It's a core issue - the question is effectively "How does your government feel about the innate value of human life?" and now, with science in the mix "And of actual verifiable truth?"

It's shocking how lost in the background noise it becomes when it comes up.


File: caf452c3c697909⋯.mp4 (8.78 MB, 720x404, 180:101, caf452c3c6979095c6524027fe….mp4)

abortion is evil. the doctors are more to blame than the patients. the patients are lied to, the doctors know EXACTLY what theyre doing.


Because facebook is not a scientific method for gathering opinion data, brainlet.



As long as they are killing niglets and disgenenic crack babies, no one cares.



Where is this video from?

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / hisrol / hqrs / leftpol / prchicas / tacos / tulpa / vg ]