Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

volchitsa

Delirium wrote: »

it was added to stop the possibility of abortion being made available via judicial judgement. How you can say 'The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not' when history doesn't agree with you

Can anyone name a single other intentional consequence of the 8th apart from making abortions more complicated to obtain?

I can think of none.

Plenty of unintended consequences though. All of them negative. I'm pretty certain that nobody actually intended to make the already heart breaking decision to turn off life support on a dead woman who happened to be pregnant even more difficult by threatening them with jail if the baby wasn't dead? Or did somebody fear the arrival of packs of homicidal doctors slavering at the idea of killing unborn babies by unnecessarily hastening miscarriages, if there was no specific protection for the unborn? Or what?

Nobody with an honest bone in their body thinks the 8th was ever about anything except stopping sluts and hussies from using abortion as contraception.
The words may not have been used, but that is who it was about.

It wasnt even meant to prevent pregnant women from getting proper healthcare when ill - or it it was, the pro-lifers all "forgot" to mention that. I think a lot of people didn't realize that would even happen. More unintended consequences.

So I'd be very interested in what way the 8th was meant to protect the unborn apart from preventing abortion?

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Can anyone name a single other intentional consequence of the 8th apart from making abortions more complicated to obtain?

I can think of none.

Plenty of unintended consequences though. All of them negative. I'm pretty certain that nobody actually intended to make the already heart breaking decision to turn off life support on a dead woman who happened to be pregnant even more difficult by threatening them with jail if the baby wasn't dead? Or did somebody fear the arrival of packs of homicidal doctors slavering at the idea of killing unborn babies by unnecessarily hastening miscarriages, if there was no specific protection for the unborn? Or what?

Nobody with an honest bone in their body thinks the 8th was ever about anything except stopping sluts and hussies from using abortion as contraception.
The words may not have been used, but that is who it was about.

It wasnt even meant to prevent pregnant women from getting proper healthcare when ill - or it it was, the pro-lifers all "forgot" to mention that. I think a lot of people didn't realize that would even happen. More unintended consequences.

So I'd be very interested in what way the 8th was meant to protect the unborn apart from preventing abortion?

I wouldn't bother trying to engage further on this. It's a particular poster's MO, to try to seem as if they're engaging in a discussion and then drawing people down roads and dissecting their posts in a multiquote line by line fashion. It doesn't fool people and it certainly isn't worthwhile engaging with because all you'll read is endless versions of 'well you said this and I said this'.

drkpower

Article 41.4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Gay marriage isn't in the constitution either. What the <snip> were we voting for last year?

lazybones32

lazygal wrote: »

The problem with your point about best medical practice is that in the case of abortion, best medical practice can't supercede the constitution. That's why things like medical practice, such as abortion, shouldn't be in our constitution. You might be able to find 95% of psychiatrists in Ireland who have medical evidence as to why a suicidal pregnant woman shouldn't have access to abortion, but the people voted in 1992 to allow suicidal pregnant women to have access to abortion. If you want to base best medical practice on actual medical evidence, rather than have it subservient to constitutional law, then you should really be arguing for the repeal of the eighth and its replacement with nothing but good medical practice.
I wonder why Patricia Casey has not continued surveying her fellow psychiatrists since 2013 around the time of the protection of life during pregnancy hearings? Might it be that she knows because the Irish people voted in the right of pregnant suicidal women into the constitution she has no grounds for arguing best medical practice overrides the constitution? Or is it because she simply abandoned her pleas for the state to refuse to legislate on a constitutional right because she knew it was never going to happen?
If she was that worried about best medical practice, she'd have done a lot more than collate responses from 113 respondents to her survey.

A lot of waffle that has nothing to do with the point. The point was and still is, the majority of Irish psychiatrists said that abortion is not the solution for suicidal tendencies in pregnant women.

Delirium wrote: »

does this mean that you would support the removal of the 8th and better access to abortion in Ireland for women?

From WHO 2012 document on abortion(pages 18 and 19):

Citing a UN paper to me is the same as showing me toilet paper.
I'll support abortion when it can be proven that there is no life in the womb.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Citing a UN paper to me is the same as showing me toilet paper.
I'll support abortion when it can be proven that there is no life in the womb.

Are there any medical organisations that you would accept guidelines from?

I mean it just seems odd to dismiss medical advice/opinion/guidelines when we're discussing medical care of the woman and foetus.

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

Are there any medical organisations that you would accept guidelines from?

I mean it just seems odd to dismiss medical advice/opinion/guidelines when we're discussing medical care of the woman and foetus.

I'll consider guidelines from ABUN (anyone but UN); ever Dr. Peter O'Grady of Doctors For Choice.

Are we discussing medical care of a woman and her child? I thought this thread was about aborting the child...or is 'medical care' the new code word?

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

it was added to stop the possibility of abortion being made available via judicial judgement. How you can say 'The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not' when history doesn't agree with you

I'm still not sure what our opinions on the motivation behind the 8th has to do with the fact that abortion is not in the Constitution, but still, the fact that we protected the right to life from judicial or governmental amendment doesn't mean that we protected the right to life in order to stop the possibility of abortion being introduced; we did it to protect the lives of the unborn. That abortion is at odds with that purpose (generally) precludes abortion in Ireland. The purpose of the pro life camp is no more to oppose abortion than the purpose of the pro choice camp is to endorse abortion, for both abortion is only a means to an end, and it is the end which is the subject of dispute.

When I said 'The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not', I didn't offer that point in isolation. I actually said 'The mistake is in thinking the point is to oppose abortion when it's not; the point is to protect the lives of unborn people,and that necessitates opposing abortion.', which is a more substantive statement. As I said the 8th was intended to protect the lives of the unborn; such protection precludes abortion but the purpose is not to attack abortion, it's to protect lives.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Can anyone name a single other intentional consequence of the 8th apart from making abortions more complicated to obtain? I can think of none.

It protects the lives of the unborn to a greater degree than placing such a protection in legislation. That's one.

volchitsa wrote: »

Plenty of unintended consequences though. All of them negative. I'm pretty certain that nobody actually intended to make the already heart breaking decision to turn off life support on a dead woman who happened to be pregnant even more difficult by threatening them with jail if the baby wasn't dead? Or did somebody fear the arrival of packs of homicidal doctors slavering at the idea of killing unborn babies by unnecessarily hastening miscarriages, if there was no specific protection for the unborn? Or what?

I don't think anyone was threatened with jail in that instance, but you do raise one unintended consequence though; it provided a convenient excuse to certain individuals from which to hang blame for all sorts of calamities, which can then be used for creating hyperbolic statements like "packs of homicidal doctors slavering at the idea of killing unborn babies by unnecessarily hastening miscarriages"... which add so much to a reasoned discussion.

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody with an honest bone in their body thinks the 8th was ever about anything except stopping sluts and hussies from using abortion as contraception. The words may not have been used, but that is who it was about.

And it gives people an excuse to infer that anyone disagreeing with their characterisation of other peoples perceptions of people as sluts and hussies would be dishonest... so I suppose it opened a world of mendacious argument possibilities for some; there's another unintended consequence.

volchitsa wrote: »

It wasnt even meant to prevent pregnant women from getting proper healthcare when ill - or it it was, the pro-lifers all "forgot" to mention that. I think a lot of people didn't realize that would even happen. More unintended consequences.

That particular consequence would depend on including killing unborn children under the term 'proper healthcare'; a characterisation that's disputable at best. Disputable characterisations, another unintended consequence.

volchitsa wrote: »

So I'd be very interested in what way the 8th was meant to protect the unborn apart from preventing abortion?

Didn't you offer one way it might protect the unborn yourself up above; where a corpse could be sustained sufficiently to bring an unborn child to term the 8th would require that it should be? I would think that aside from precluding abortion, it places an obligation on the government to ensure relevant legislation requires those involved in the care of unborn children and pregnant women to treat the unborn as patients requiring care as well as their prospective parents; ensuring a higher standard of care for the unborn, and a better chance of survival.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I wouldn't bother trying to engage further on this. It's a particular poster's MO, to try to seem as if they're engaging in a discussion and then drawing people down roads and dissecting their posts in a multiquote line by line fashion. It doesn't fool people and it certainly isn't worthwhile engaging with because all you'll read is endless versions of 'well you said this and I said this'.

We're probably more than a bit off topic talking about how posters behave rather than the topic in hand, but for what it's worth I understand some posters dislike having what they say actually discussed, but I always think if they don't want to discuss it they probably shouldn't say it. This particular poster's MO is to discuss what people are saying, not the people who are saying it

Absolam

drkpower wrote: »

Gay marriage isn't in the constitution either. What the <snip> were we voting for last year?

Averse as I am to conflating the two issues, I think you're making a good point. As many posters here have said since; there's no such thing as gay marriage. Last year we voted to amend the Constitution to preclude distinction as to sex being used to prevent a marriage. That preclusion means that gay people may not be prevented from marrying, even though gay marriage is not, as you say, in the Constitution.

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'll support abortion when it can be proven that there is no life in the womb.

If you'd said sentient life, you'd have a fair point, but just life is too vague. To be sentient demands a brain of some kind.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Citing a UN paper to me is the same as showing me toilet paper.
I'll support abortion when it can be proven that there is no life in the womb.

very round the hills way of saying you'd never support abortion.

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

If you'd said sentient life, you'd have a fair point, but just life is too vague. To be sentient demands a brain of some kind.

there was a point when everyone reading this wasn't sentient but our brains developed. But what if brain waves were recorded as early as 6 weeks into the pregnancy - would that constitute sentient life?

Delirium wrote: »

very round the hills way of saying you'd never support abortion.

Did you only figure that out now?...the thread is open nearly one year.

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Did you only figure that out now?...the thread is open nearly one year.

If you oppose all abortion, what good are reports on when it's necessary or appropriate to you? You won't take any of them as legitimate evidence so why should anyone bother providing links to them?

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

there was a point when everyone reading this wasn't sentient but our brains developed. But what if brain waves were recorded as early as 6 weeks into the pregnancy - would that constitute sentient life?

Did you only figure that out now?...the thread is open nearly one year.

as lazygal pointed out, it's because you suggested that you were open to revising your position based on medical evidence/testimony.

lazybones32

lazygal wrote: »

If you oppose all abortion, what good are reports on when it's necessary or appropriate to you? You won't take any of them as legitimate evidence so why should anyone bother providing links to them?

Who asked for links? My fingers and search engine work fine so I can find things for myself.
Please read what I write in future: I pay no attention to the UN or any of its subsidiaries. What they publish, I consider it to be used toilet paper.

Delirium wrote: »

as lazygal pointed out, it's because you suggested that you were open to revising your position based on medical evidence/testimony.

I said nothing of the sort. I said I would consider information, you know, read it, study a bit, see what others have to say...In this topic, I doubt any new info can come to light.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort. I said I would consider information, you know, read it, study a bit, see what others have to say...In this topic, I doubt any new info can come to light.

you posted.....

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'll consider guidelines from ABUN (anyone but UN); ever Dr. Peter O'Grady of Doctors For Choice.

generally, people are open to changing their mind when they use the word 'consider'.

If you're never going to allow for abortion then you're not considering the guidelines (i.e allowing for revising your view on abortion).

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

you posted.....


generally, people are open to changing their mind when they use the word 'consider'.

If you're never going to allow for abortion then you're not considering the guidelines (i.e allowing for revising your view on abortion).

There's no need to highlight my own words to me...it was me who wrote them.

I use the word in the dictionary sense, not your general application: to think carefully about something in order to make a decision (Merriam-Webster) I can't find my Collins...

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

I use the word in the dictionary sense, not your general application: to think carefully about something in order to make a decision (Merriam-Webster) I can't find my Collins...

you said you would allow for abortion if there was 'no life in the womb'.

That means it's impossible for you to read anything that would make you revise your position on abortion (as a foetus is the beginnings of life).

Your decision is already made before reading any material.

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

you said you would allow for abortion if there was 'no life in the womb'.

That means it's impossible for you to read anything that would make you revise your position on abortion (as a foetus is the beginnings of life).

Your decision is already made before reading any material.

Unless new info can show there is no life in the womb, then no, there is no reason to change my position. My decision has been made because I've been reading material and not just material relating to Pro-Life agendas. I had to study about how children learn for a thesis, which led me to learn a lot more than any website or flyer. I didn't only learn about abortion 4 hours ago; I've been learning about it for the last 17 years, so why are you splitting hairs about me having my mind made up after this amount of time? I've emboldened my text, to save you the trouble of doing it in reply.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Unless new info can show there is no life in the womb, then no, there is no reason to change my position. My decision has been made because I've been reading material and not just material relating to Pro-Life agendas. I had to study about how children learn for a thesis, which led me to learn a lot more than any website or flyer. I didn't only learn about abortion 4 hours ago; I've been learning about it for the last 17 years, so why are you splitting hairs about me having my mind made up after this amount of time? I've emboldened my text, to save you the trouble of doing it in reply.

My point was that you won't be changing your position on abortion so it's somewhat misleading to say you will consider any medical information regarding abortion.

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

there was a point when everyone reading this wasn't sentient but our brains developed.

And there was a point before that where they hadn't been conceived. If contraception was still illegal maybe there'd be more people reading this post, but does the world really need more people?

But what if brain waves were recorded as early as 6 weeks into the pregnancy - would that constitute sentient life?

Probably worth distinguishing any measurable brain waves and those that are indicative of thought as described below. From the linked article the foetus is starting to develop consciousness at week 24. That said, where termination is being considered, the earlier the intervention the better. From what I've read in this regard, the morning after pill significantly reduces the number of later abortions for example. The fact that the state now recognises this as late contraception rather than abortion, even though this is contrary to the Vatican position, is a big step forward. Putting women who do seek elective abortions in a position where they have to travel to get them does inevitably delay the intervention.

The most prominent question asked is that of the consciousness of the fetus, is it aware of its existence and would aborting it be comparable to the murder of a child who's been born? Well, according to the numerous studies done, No, it's not. A fetus' brain only starts to emit electrical signals at 12 weeks, and the EGGs recorded are comparable to that of a sea slug according to the eminent neuroscience researcher Micheal Gazzaniga in his book, "The ethical brain". A fetus only develops its cerebral cortex, the part of the brain which regulates thought and consciousness at 24 weeks, well after the limit for abortions. Before 24 weeks, its brain only emits electrical signals, not brain waves which indicate thought.

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

My point was that you won't be changing your position on abortion so it's somewhat misleading to say you will consider any medical information regarding abortion.

I already have considered medical info re: abortion. That's why I've made my mind up on the matter. If new info becomes available, I will consider it (think carefully about it before reaching a decision ) but that doesn't guarantee that I'm going to ignore or abandon everything I've learned previously.

Don't accuse me of misleading when I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I've even looked back over my posts and it is you and lazygal who introduce this notion of me changing my stance. I spoke about listening to the psychiatric professionals who spoke at the POLB and somehow you two have likened that to me changing my mind if you can present a paper that says abortion is great.

frag420

Absolam, Lazybonea, Nick Park et all....below are two recently fertilised eggs( not be me I should add 😂😂)

One is slightly older than the other. Would you anti choice people here consider either of these eggs to be equal to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner?

Would you consider both eggs to be equal to the examples above? Would you consider either egg to be more equal than the other?

And please answe without the usual waffle of reply with questions, it's a simple question and a yes/no answer will suffice!!

lazybones32

They'd all be equally in line for getting an <snip> kicking for getting my name wrong....that's what I think.

But tell me good sir/madam, why do you think any of them shouldn't have the right to Life?

frag420

lazybones32 wrote: »

They'd all be equally in line for getting an <snip> kicking for getting my name wrong....that's what I think.

But tell me good sir/madam, why do you think any of them shouldn't have the right to Life?

You must have missed the part where I politely requested that you answer without the usual tactic of spinning it around and diverting with a question!?

So could you please now ask what was asked and I promise to honestly answer your question afterwards, I give you my word!

I would just like to say that before I answer I would still like to hear replies from the others on your side of the debate that I mentioned above. Let us hear your reply on what I asked above and il give you an answer!

Have we a deal?

Absolam

frag420 wrote: »

Absolam, Lazybonea, Nick Park et all....below are two recently fertilised eggs( not be me I should add 😂😂) One is slightly older than the other. Would you anti choice people here consider either of these eggs to be equal to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner? Would you consider both eggs to be equal to the examples above? Would you consider either egg to be more equal than the other? And please answe without the usual waffle of reply with questions, it's a simple question and a yes/no answer will suffice!!

Unfortunately when you ask for something you're not really in a position to dictate what you get in return... so whilst you might want to limit the terms of replies to things you think you can manage, you may find that's just not what happens.

I don't think your question admits of a yes/no answer in short; so it looks like you're going to get stuck with at least some of 'the usual waffle'.

For myself, despite the fact that I'm not an anti choice person, I'd say I consider any implanted egg to have an equal right to life to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner. Actually, I wouldn't say I simply consider it to be the case, I actually know it is the case. However, I don't think they have equal mass, size, complexity, rights to vote or consent to medical treatment, or a plethora of other measures one might imagine, to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner; or that those three examples of yours are themselves equal in many such respects. Further, I think your notion that one thing may be more equal than another is somewhat specious; if things are actually equal, how can another thing be more equal?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

For myself, despite the fact that I'm not an anti choice person, I'd say I consider any implanted egg to have an equal right to life to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner. Actually, I wouldn't say I simply consider it to be the case, I actually know it is the case. However, I don't think they have equal mass, size, complexity, rights to vote or consent to medical treatment, or a plethora of other measures one might imagine, to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner; or that those three examples of yours are themselves equal in many such respects. Further, I think your notion that one thing may be more equal than another is somewhat specious; if things are actually equal, how can another thing be more equal?

Firstly thanks for the clear and unambiguous statement of your opinion. While it's not one I share, it is close enough to the law as it stands and I'm guessing it remains the opinion of many devout Christians.

While you acknowledge that the implanted egg has vastly different physical characteristics than a baby or mature adult, you consider it no less of a person. As such, would you be able or willing to list the attributes that you consider make a person a person? Do you consider that the freshly fertilised egg that has yet to implant in the uterine wall share these attributes.

lazybones32

frag420 wrote: »

You must have missed the part where I politely requested that you answer without the usual tactic of spinning it around and diverting with a question!?

So could you please now ask what was asked and I promise to honestly answer your question afterwards, I give you my word!

I would just like to say that before I answer I would still like to hear replies from the others on your side of the debate that I mentioned above. Let us hear your reply on what I asked above and il give you an answer!

Have we a deal?

I did miss it actually but I can answer any way I please.

It depends on what the standard for equal is: are they all the same, no. Are they all human, yes; are they all deserving of Life, yes. Can they make the same contribution in their current state, no. All participants were at one point in the same position as the younger of the 2 eggs were, so they are equal in terms of all having experienced the same stage of growth.So you see, until you make your question a bit more specific, I can answer yes/no with both answers being correct.

Adds: Someone said something similar but I honestly didn't plagiarise or read his before posting.

Nick Park

frag420 wrote: »

Absolam, Lazybonea, Nick Park et all....below are two recently fertilised eggs( not be me I should add 😂😂)

One is slightly older than the other. Would you anti choice people here consider either of these eggs to be equal to say a 17 week old baby or say a 35 year old woman or a dying pensioner?

Would you consider both eggs to be equal to the examples above? Would you consider either egg to be more equal than the other?

And please answe without the usual waffle of reply with questions, it's a simple question and a yes/no answer will suffice!!

Unless somebody died and made you mod, then you don't get to dictate to others that they have to give simplistic one word answers. Explaining why you're actually asking the wrong question and trying to take us down a rabbit trail is not 'waffling' - it's how grown ups discuss and clarify positions.

I have never advanced the position that an egg is the same as a 17-week-old baby, a 35-year-old woman, or a dying pensioner. Nor indeed, are the baby, the woman or the pensioner the same as each other. They're all different.

The question should not be about who is the same as anyone else. The question is whether the law should grant them an equal right to life.