How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

thee glitz

Grayson wrote: »

So you're not in favour of switching off machines to kill the body of a brain dead coma patient?

People who will never again understand the simplest of ideas?
It's a matter of what the alternative is.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you, quite dishonestly I fear, put a font size stress on the wrong part of the quote. You should have stressed the words "morally speaking" because as I said in post #115 I demonstrably did not compare fetuses and rocks. I compared my moral position on fetuses and rocks.

Unbelievable. Here is the quote again, andwithout emphasis this time:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me.

By "it", you meant the fetus so essentially you were saying a 12-week-old fetus is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg and so therefore there was nothing wrong with my saying you equated a fetus with a rock, as that is what you did. Yeah, we know, you did so "morally speaking" but I didn't say differently and so this is all just pointless semantics, but seeing as it seems to mean so much to you from this point on, whenever I feel it relevant to point out that you equated fetuses with rocks, I shall go out of my way to always emphasize that you did so "morally speaking"..... how about that?

Any clearer for you now, or do you wish to distort my position further?

Nobody distorted your position dude.

The failure in the analogy is that one side of it is a scenario with ONE ethical agent.... the mother. The other side of it is a scenario with SEVERAL ethical agents. So the two scenarios are not usefully analogous for that reason.

Well, I'll give you this, you sure have a great knack at making utter nonsense sound rational and perceptive.

What you highlight is correct, but so what? An analogy can still be useful despite that and mine absolutely was just that, and still is for that matter. You even agreed with it (indirectly) as you claimed that it failed only because there was no reason to have ethical or moral concern for a 12-week-old fetus....... then when I point out that you what you just said essentially conceded that you feel the analogy would have been sound if we had been discussing fetuses at a stage of gestation you did feel a moral and ethical concern for.... you decide to move the goalposts and are now ludicrously saying that one side of my analogy has more 'ethical agents' than the other and so now that's the new reason why my analogy failed ...... would ya pull the other one

I repeat, the "slogan" with which you have an issue is very much context based. And the context in this case is that of the temporal time period under which people apply that slogan. Which likely differs from person to person.

Slogans serve a purpose, but they are by necessity short little sound bites which tend to only paint a fraction of the position the person behind the slogan actually holds. If you wish to appraise the slogan alone, rather than explore what the people saying it actually think and mean then that is your failing, not theirs.

So, these slogans such as 'Her Body, Her Choice' are not hollow, even if the same people repeating them believe that it should be illegal for women to have abortions at 16 weeks (for example) because in their minds they have their own context, and perhaps even a 'temporal time period' in mind for which the slogans pertain.......

Yeah, sure that's not waffle at all like.

So when I say the lights are out and no one is home, I do so based on the fact that we know what the pre-requisites for HCSSE are generally, and they are all simply absent. I am not merely saying HCSSE is absent, I am saying all the things we connect with the production and existence of HCSSE are themselves also absent.

Well, at the start of the thread you were just saying fetuses full stop and now you seem to be softening on that. I can understand that argument being made for the first six to seven weeks by the way, which is why I have no real problem with making first trimester abortions legal, but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are moving around in response to sounds, the mother's movements, scratching, sucking their thumb etc, not to have a moral and ethical concern of some degree for them. I find it hard to comprehend how anyone could feel differently tbh, let alone say that morally speaking they have the same level of concern for them as they would a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQVI9FjE3C8

You also said at one point that...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

..the well being of people who actually exist, rather than people who might potentially exist, should be the focus of our health system...

Now I know you said the above in a the context of a discussion about who should foot the bill for abortions but I just wanted to say that I don't see why we can't do both: focus on the health of a devolving fetus as well as the mother. I have no problem with therapeutic abortions also if they are necessary by the way but I think it's important to make that point as all too often the abortion debate is framed in such a way as paint those who would be against abortion, to one degree another, as placing more importance on fetal life than the do the mother's life and that is just totally untrue, in my experience at least.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

........ but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following .............

Human heart muscle in a dish, beating spontaneously :

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are .......... sucking their thumb etc,

This is probably what you are seeing :

(WARNING - actual 12 week old ( unfortunately miscarried )

http://i.imgur.com/gUw7HKV.jpg

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Lots of people argue in favour of abortion on the basis of bodily autonomy, ignoring the unborn's ability to act autonomously. If abortion stops a beating heart (it does), I don't see how its legalisation can be morally justified.

Mainly because I see no reason why "heart beat" should be a basis for moral and ethical concern. Why do you feel this should be a basis on it's own, without any other supporting philosophy or thought behind it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Unbelievable. Here is the quote again, andwithout emphasis this time:

Unbelievable, quoting it in multiple sizes, colors, fonts, typefaces or whatever else is NOT going to change the facts of what I said, nor what I am telling you I mean by what I said. Unbelievable, I still maintain that I did not equate the Rock (X) and the Fetus (Y) but my moral position on rocks (X1) and my moral opinion of fetuses (Y1).

Unbelievable, get with the program, Unbelievable. Unbelievable, I equated X1 and Y1. Unbelievable, not X and Y. Unbelievable, see the difference? Unbelievable.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody distorted your position dude.

Except you, in the ways I outlined. Dude.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, I'll give you this, you sure have a great knack at making utter nonsense sound rational and perceptive.

Well, I'll give you this, you sure have a great knack for CALLING things "utter nonsense" without making ANY moves at all towards establishing that it actually is.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What you highlight is correct, but so what? An analogy can still be useful despite that

If an analogy does not hold, there is little utility in it. The purpose of analogy is to explain a point in a way that is more accessible to the target, so when they move back to your ACTUAL point, it will be easier to parse. But the analogy you used fails because there is no analogy to be drawn between a scenario with one moral agent, and scenarios with multiple moral agents.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

you decide to move the goalposts

Except I did not move any goalposts. What I did is to point out there are more than one playing FIELDS, with different goal posts and rules, in which the same ball can be played but under different conditions.

Your issue, to get past your hang ups with your failed analogy, is with people saying "Her body, her choice". You feel this is an empty slogan because you have found points in the process where people would not apply it.

And I feel that does not make the slogan empty, it just limits its applicability. The point being that the periods in which most people argue FOR abortion by demand..... usually in the region of 16 weeks, but people do argue for the US model up to 24 weeks..... since there is only one moral agent in play at that point then the "Her body, her choice" slogan is entirely applicable, entirely valid, and entirely cogent and coherent.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So, these slogans such as 'Her Body, Her Choice' are not hollow, even if the same people repeating them believe that it should be illegal for women to have abortions at 16 weeks

What I am saying is that if you merely harp on about the slogan, rather than also considering how, why and when people apply that slogan..... then you are taking their positions and words out of the context that renders them coherent.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, sure that's not waffle at all like.

Glad you agree. Like.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, at the start of the thread you were just saying fetuses full stop and now you seem to be softening on that.

I am not aware that my position has changed at all since entering into the thread. So I think what is more likely that my position "softening" is that your understanding of what my actual position IS has been improving.

This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y is actually saying changes..... but person X assumes (often, and in your case, falsely) that this is because person Y's position has changed.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are moving around in response to sounds, the mother's movements, scratching, sucking their thumb etc, not to have a moral and ethical concern of some degree for them.

And I think that, while I can understand your position emotionally, is an error.

Firstly because while watching such videos as the one you have linked to, you are merely ASSUMING to know what the "movement" is in response to. You tell me it is in response to "sound" for example. How do you know that? I do not see any basis to believe you do know that. I think you are assuming it because you are parsing it true a narrative that renders it true for you.

Secondly movement does not indicate the lights are on and anyone is home. Even a bacteria, one of the simplest forms of life we know and not one I think you or I would consider holds ANYTHING even remotely relating to "HCSSE", will change it's behaviors, direction and movements in response to light sources or needle pricks.

Yet in a massively complex multi-celluar creature like we see end to end in the human life cycle..... replete with numerous autonomic responses and behaviors..... you would assume a few basic movements establish moral agency for us?

Fair enough, I can understand that position emotionally. You look at something human shaped, making human like movements, and your moral centers light up in your brain. I get that. But it simple is not coherent at the intellectual level at all. So perhaps we differ solely in that I do not let emotional fallacy over ride intellectual truths.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I just wanted to say that I don't see why we can't do both: focus on the health of a devolving fetus as well as the mother.

Because for me on one hand we have a blob of biological matter with no moral agency I can discern..... and on the other we have an ACTUAL person with emotional concerns striving towards maximizing her own well being and happiness.

And SHE has decided that maximizing her own well being and happiness involves not becoming a mother, not being pregnant, and exercising autonomy over her own biological and reproductive processes.

And given there is only one moral agency in the equation..... herself..... I see absolutely no moral reason to stand in the way of her choice at all.

Clearly many people have the same moral position as me although less pronounced.... in that they are ok with abortion if the mother is suicidally depressed about being pregnant. We hear people on threads like this say that all the time and even legal cases in Irish law have highlighted this position.

So they want to maximize her well-being in THAT situation by allowing her to free herself of the source of that suicidal depression.

But I would simply ask, why stop there? Why is improving her well being and happiness ONLY pertinent when suicidal? If our goal is to move her along the continuum from "lack of well being" --> "well being" then that goal is just as valid at ANY point on that continuum..... not just at the extreme end of depression.

If we imagine a scale of 0-10 for happiness and people want to allow abortions for women at 0 so they can move to 2..... then how is that ANY more valid than doing it to move someone from 2 to 4? From 6 to 8? From 8 to 10? Why do our moral and ethical concerns only kick in at the extremes? That makes little sense to me when only one moral agent is involved.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unbelievable, I still maintain that I did not equate the Rock (X) and the Fetus (Y) but my moral position on rocks (X1) and my moral opinion of fetuses (Y1).

You can "maintain" what you like but that won't change what you did

Except you, in the ways I outlined. Dude.

Had I changed the context of what you said in some way, then you would have a legitimate gripe... but I didn't... and so you don't.

If an analogy does not hold, there is little utility in it. The purpose of analogy is to explain a point in a way that is more accessible to the target, so when they move back to your ACTUAL point, it will be easier to parse. But the analogy you used fails because there is no analogy to be drawn between a scenario with one moral agent, and scenarios with multiple moral agents.

I know what an analogy is, dude. Cut the condescension. You said:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... if there is no arguments for affording moral or ethical concern towards the fetus (and as I say, I simply am not seeing any) then there is nothing left in the debate OTHER than the woman and what she is doing with her own body...

By saying the above you were suggesting that if you DID have a moral and ethical concern for a fetus, then there would be something left in the debate OTHER than the woman... you're running from that now and I don't blame you.

Except I did not move any goalposts. What I did is to point out there are more than one playing FIELDS, with different goal posts and rules, in which the same ball can be played but under different conditions.

It doesn't matter if there is more than one playing field. It would if my analogy was attempting say both scenarios were the very same but I wasn't. I was merely saying that the motive behind drink driving legislation is to protect the life of the innocent and while enforcing the laws regarding it we have to restrict what people can do with their bodies, but that's a consequence of the legislation.. not the intent of it.

What I am saying is that if you merely harp on about the slogan, rather than also considering how, why and when people apply that slogan.....then you are taking their positions and words out of the context that renders them coherent.

How the hell could I be ignoring the very context which I have spoken about?You seem to think that if someone disagrees with some aspect of what the pro choice crowd do or say, well then they must not fully appreciate it what they are about. Eh, we get it, some of us just don't agree is all.

If someone stands on O'Connell St with a sign that says THE WORLD IS FLAT well then they are gonna have people arguing to the contrary. If that person says: 'What I'm saying is right because I'm only referring to a specific section of the world and not the WHOLE world'.. would that make sense? Contextually speaking, I guess maybe it would, but who gives a fcuk... his sign suggested otherwise and the same goes for the 'Her Body, Her Choice' brigade. They don't believe it and so they should quit saying it. I get that 'Her Body, Her Choice, Up Until The 24th Week' is a bit of mouthful but I'm a great believer in saying what you actually mean. They should give it a try.

I am not aware that my position has changed at all since entering into the thread. So I think what is more likely that my position "softening" is that your understanding of what my actual position IS has been improving.

This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y is actually saying changes..... but person X assumes (often, and in your case, falsely) that this is because person Y's position has changed.

Nope. Quite feeling sorry for yourself. Just looking for clarification as earlier in the thread you said:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My own position on abortion was formed when I decided to not only sit down and REALLY understand what I mean by those words.... but specifically what I mean by them in the context of a fetus or the subject of abortion.

And what I realized is there is no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus. All the things I would hang moral or ethical concern off..... say the faculty of human consciousness and sentience for example..... are simply ABSENT in the fetus. And in the absence of these things I have no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock.

Now, in the above you didn't mention the age of the fetus. You merely said because there was no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus, you held as much moral concern for them as you would a rock, but you no longer seem to be speaking about 'all' fetuses, just those between 12-16 weeks or below. A non-condescending clarification is what I'm looking for and the less you use the word 'fuzzy' the better.

Firstly because while watching such videos as the one you have linked to, you are merely ASSUMING to know what the "movement" is in response to. You tell me it is in response to "sound" for example. How do you know that? I do not see any basis to believe you do know that. I think you are assuming it because you are parsing it true a narrative that renders it true for you.

I'm assuming nothing. I have attended ultrasounds at between 12 and 16 weeks where movement was stimulated by asking the mother to cough etc. Whenever I see these videos showing fetuses sucking their thumbs, I don't think a study is needed (for some of us at least) for that to warrant people having more moral concern for it than they would say... a rock, or a table. Is that an emotional reaction? Sure, but so what, it's not an unreasonable one. Not like they are looking at footage of sperm swimming and cooing at it. Although I suspect you see no difference between the two.

There is quite a bit of science to suggest that fetuses feel pain / stimuli at an earlier gestational stage than many would like us to believe though...

“A motor response can first be seen as a whole body movement away from a stimulus and observed on ultrasound from as early as 7.5 weeks’ gestational age. The perioral area is the first part of the body to respond to touch at approximately 8 weeks, but by 14 weeks most of the body is responsive to touch.”

The fetus starts to make movements in response to being touched from eight weeks.."

“Movement of the fetus in response to external stimuli occurs as early as 8 weeks gestation…”

“The earliest reactions to painful stimuli motor reflexes can be detected at 7.5 weeks of gestation"

In any event we don't really need to focus on such young fetuses as you apparently have no moral or ethical regard for fetuses at any stage of human development, even long past the point at which science is debating whether or not their movement is reactionary or not.

Secondly movement does not indicate the lights are on and anyone is home. Even a bacteria, one of the simplest forms of life we know and not one I think you or I would consider holds ANYTHING even remotely relating to "HCSSE", will change it's behaviors, direction and movements in response to light sources or needle pricks.

Back to bacteria again, eh. We are not talking about pathogens, dude, we are talking about prenatal human development. Maybe you struggle with moral and ethical concern for our species at that stage, but many of us don't and for sound reasons.

Fair enough, I can understand that position emotionally. You look at something human shaped, making human like movements, and your moral centers light up in your brain.

lol "Human shaped, making human like movements??"

Yeah, I'm down in Smyth's every day crying about how their battery operated dolls are being mistreated

I get that.

You get nothing. You think you do, you think have a grasp of the opposing side of the debate but you do not. It's just yet more condescending clap trap about how your opinion is science based and everyone's else's is just emotionally based and incoherent.

But it simple is not coherent at the intellectual level at all. So perhaps we differ solely in that I do not let emotional fallacy over ride intellectual truths.

And there we have it again. This from the guy was whinging about how health care should focus on women who are actually alive and not on fetuses that just had the potential to exist. Why should your emotionally fueled opinion (and it is) be considered any more legitimate that anyone else's opinion one wonders.

Because for me on one hand we have a blob of biological matter with no moral agency I can discern..... and on the other we have an ACTUAL person with emotional concerns striving towards maximizing her own well being and happiness.

Blobs "of biological matter"?? All fetuses?? And you have the cheek to refer to other users' arguments as 'incoherent'

Why do our moral and ethical concerns only kick in at the extremes? That makes little sense to me when only one moral agent is involved.

According to you only one moral agent involved but there is a reason that abortion over 24 weeks is illegal in most civilized parts of the world and that is because the vast majority of people are capable of seeing that there is another... the developing fetus... and while you may not have the ability to see fetuses as being worthy of your ethical or moral concern, the vast majority of us can.

And SHE has decided that maximizing her own well being and happiness involves not becoming a mother, not being pregnant, and exercising autonomy over her own biological and reproductive processes.

And given there is only one moral agency in the equation..... herself..... I see absolutely no moral reason to stand in the way of her choice at all.

Yeah, Sarah Catt "maximized her own well being and happiness"..... they locked her up.

222233

I don't know about the general punishment feelings from the pro-life campaigners but I'm assuming those coming from the religious perspective would expect whatever it is that happens when you "sin"

volchitsa

222233 wrote: »

I don't know about the general punishment feelings from the pro-life campaigners but I'm assuming those coming from the religious perspective would expect whatever it is that happens when you "sin"

So why has the Catholic Church been so adamant that it has to remain illegal then? A heavenly punishment doesn't seem to be enough for them?

222233

volchitsa wrote: »

So why has the Catholic Church been so adamant that it has to remain illegal then? A heavenly punishment doesn't seem to be enough for them?

I have no idea I just assume if their faith is what they say it is then they shouldn't need other punishments, your guess is as good as mine, religion isn't exactly my forte.

Depp

volchitsa wrote: »

So why has the Catholic Church been so adamant that it has to remain illegal then? A heavenly punishment doesn't seem to be enough for them?

not a supporter of punishment for the mothers who get abortions, but by your logic would the church not be in favour of someone who murders someone getting no legal punishment as being a sinner is punishment enough, completely ridiculous point to make

Ragnar Lothbrok

The vast majority of Pro-Life people wouldn't seek any punishment of the woman, but instead would wish to see punishment for the person who performed the abortion. That would certainly be my experience.

Having said that, there may be an extremist minority who would also support punishment of the woman, but extremists by their very nature should not be seen as representative.

volchitsa

Depp wrote: »

not a supporter of punishment for the mothers who get abortions, but by your logic would the church not be in favour of someone who murders someone getting no legal punishment as being a sinner is punishment enough, completely ridiculous point to make

You may have missed the post I was replying to, which said that most pro life people would be satisfied with the punishment for the "sin" involved i.e. They wouldn't want prison as well. I don't think anyone would say that about murder, would they?

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

You may have missed the post I was replying to, which said that most pro life people would be satisfied with the punishment for the "sin" involved i.e. They wouldn't want prison as well. I don't think anyone would say that about murder, would they?

I take it you're not implying that most prolife people are religious?

Depp

volchitsa wrote: »

You may have missed the post I was replying to, which said that most pro life people would be satisfied with the punishment for the "sin" involved i.e. They wouldn't want prison as well. I don't think anyone would say that about murder, would they?

90% of pro-lifers are not in favour of the woman being punished and to suggest its cause they all think a sin is punishment is bollocks though

volchitsa

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The vast majority of Pro-Life people wouldn't seek any punishment of the woman, but instead would wish to see punishment for the person who performed the abortion. That would certainly be my experience.

Having said that, there may be an extremist minority who would also support punishment of the woman, but extremists by their very nature should not be seen as representative.

Why not though? Aren't women responsible for their actions? And does this apply to other major decisions a woman may make? If not, why not?

Secondly, does a woman who murders her born child deserve the same immediate assumption of penal irresponsibility?

volchitsa

Depp wrote: »

90% of pro-lifers are not in favour of the woman being punished and to suggest its cause they all think a sin is punishment is bollocks though

Well maybe you should address that to the poster who made that point then.

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The vast majority of Pro-Life people wouldn't seek any punishment of the woman, but instead would wish to see punishment for the person who performed the abortion. That would certainly be my experience.

Having said that, there may be an extremist minority who would also support punishment of the woman, but extremists by their very nature should not be seen as representative.

They can't use the murder argument then

thee glitz

eviltwin wrote: »

They can't use the murder argument then

You're right ye, it is murder.

Little CuChulainn

eviltwin wrote: »

They can't use the murder argument then

Why?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can "maintain" what you like but that won't change what you did

Had I changed the context of what you said in some way, then you would have a legitimate gripe... but I didn't... and so you don't.

The only one changing what I did here is you however and yes, you are right, you can not change it much as you really want to. I genuinely do not get the utility you find in presuming to tell me what my position is, and what my words mean, when I am here telling you otherwise.

Though as we will see throughout the duration of this post.... this is FAR from the most horrific of the distortions of my position you engage in.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I know what an analogy is, dude. Cut the condescension.

Yet your use and application of it suggests otherwise. The simple fact is that since the analogy does not hold, it is neither useful nor relevant. Dude.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

By saying the above you were suggesting that if you DID have a moral and ethical concern for a fetus, then there would be something left in the debate OTHER than the woman... you're running from that now and I don't blame you.

Except I am not running from anything. That is, as you have described, the position I hold. I do not deny it, I do not change it, I am not embarrassed by it. So where you have pulled this narrative from that I have any interest in running away from it I do not know, but I suspect you extracted it from a on orifice not normally associated with communication.

The failure of your analogy is that my position on abortion is predicated on a point where only one moral agent is involved. So analogies to points in the human life cycle other than that are analogies to things I am not saying, not claiming, and are not relevant.

Yes there is a point in the process where another moral agent comes on line. But my arguments for abortion, and the periods during which I would argue abortion on demand should be legal and available are LONG before that point.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It doesn't matter if there is more than one playing field.

Except yes it does, because as I said if you insist on removing the "slogan" from the context in which people espouse it, then you are going to be judging the slogan outside the context that renders it useful, coherent, and cogent. If you want to do that then of course you will parse the slogan as being silly, empty or hypocritical. But such a move to parse it is not an honest one, a useful one, or an effective one.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I was merely saying that the motive behind drink driving legislation is to protect the life of the innocent

Which is why the analogy fails, because at the point where most people WANT to argue for abortion, say 12, 16, 20 weeks, there is no "innocent life" to protect OTHER than that of the mother. So analogies to situations where law or morals are established to protect other moral agents simply miss the mark, regardless of how emotionally invested you appear to be in that analogy.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How the hell could I be ignoring the very context which I have spoken about?

For the reasons I just outlined above.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

the same goes for the 'Her Body, Her Choice' brigade. They don't believe it and so they should quit saying it.

Except they do believe it. But the context you insist on ignoring is that BEHIND that slogan is a wealth of detail on what they mean by it, when they apply it.

That is the whole point of slogans. They are meant to grab the attention and invite further discourse on the topic of the slogan. They are not meant to be taken on their own, with no context, and with no assumption that there is a LOT more thought, caveats, context and detail behind them.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope. Quite feeling sorry for yourself.

How about you quit inventing emotions for me I do not feel, and then lambasting me for having them? Because it is as dishonest a move as it is inaccurate. (Clue: Very).

The simple fact is my position has not changed over the last few posts, you have the impression that it has, and I think it quite likely that this is solely because you are merely understanding it better. And this is VERY common on forums. A users understanding of a position changes and they become convinced it was the position that actually changed.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now, in the above you didn't mention the age of the fetus.

I mention and mentioned the age(s) of the fetus I am referring to many many times. Simply trawling through all my posts looking for the ONE or TWO times that I failed to do so does not indicate my position has changed on the matter, especially when it has not.

I have been nothing BUT clear on the time periods I use in all my arguments, and to pretend or presume otherwise is remarkably dishonest and disingenuous of you.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You merely said because there was no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus, you held as much moral concern for them as you would a rock, but you no longer seem to be speaking about 'all' fetuses, just those between 12-16 weeks or below.

There is no "no longer" about it. I have been clear abundantly and egregiously clear..... since the most early stages of the thread and numerous times manysince as to what I have been talking about AND when. With more than one user. More than one time with each user. On multiple pages through the thread. Up to AND including yourself.

So this diatribe from you is.... I really am gobsmacked.... but it is so remarkably and transparently and demonstrably dishonest from you that I simply do not know what to say. And I am rarely, as any user of this forum can attest, one that is lost for words. With the possible exception of one user I can think of, the one who thinks abortions should be allowed at ANY stage in the pregnancy, I simply have never witnessed anything like it on boards before. Wow. Just. Wow. But the links are all there for anyone genuinely interested to see just how egregiously and fetidly my position is being represented and distorted here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A non-condescending clarification is what I'm looking for and the less you use the word 'fuzzy' the better.

I genuinely think at this point that your own words and how you represent yourself in their use should be your primary concern rather than admonishing others on their use of theirs.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm assuming nothing.

It appears, in the absence of you presenting evidence to the contrary, that you are. You have merely asserted the movement is in response to sound, yet you have not established this assertion in any way.

Not that this is an issue for my position even if you did. I am just pointing out that you have not done so. But the fact is the fetus DOES respond to stimulus. I have never denied that, but have in fact said it myself numerous times. The issue is that mere movement does NOT establish that the lights are on any anyone is home. Multicellular animals as complex as our own are RIFE with autonomic and automatic responses and reflexes that have simply nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness, sentience or awareness. They simply just don't.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have attended ultrasounds at between 12 and 16 weeks where movement was stimulated by asking the mother to cough etc.

That is not sound. Or likely not to be. But the movement and compression and vibration that such an action is likely to cause in the fluids down there.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Whenever I see these videos showing fetuses sucking their thumbs, I don't think a study is needed (for some of us at least) for that to warrant people having more moral concern for it than they would say... a rock, or a table.

Clearly you don't, but I am just pointing out that this is not coherent or intellectually rigorous. You are observing autonomic responses that do not in any way indicate sentience, or the faculty of sentience, in a fetus from 0 to 20 weeks, for example. By that stage sure, it is human shaped, making very human movements, and I GET IT that this lights up the moral centers of your brain.

But it is doing so erroneously. There is no reason to think, and every reason not to think, there is anyone home and the lights are on. There. Simply. Isn't. And if there is evidence to the contrary, as I said I would be AGOG to hear it because it would, again as I said, cascade throughout my entire opinion on abortion and reverse it in literal real-time.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Is that an emotional reaction? Sure, but so what, it's not an unreasonable one.

Absolutely not, I entirely agree. It is perfectly reasonable, perfectly understandable, and perfectly justifiable. It just happens to also be entirely wrong, misplaced, misleading and unsubstantiated.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not like they are looking at footage of sperm swimming and cooing at it. Although I suspect you see no difference between the two.

I see huge numbers of differences between the two. I could list differences between the two solidly at you for 12 hours and still not run out of material. As Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development, specifically in regards studying what the comparison of fetal development in multiple animals tells us about evolutionary history and common ancestry.... you will find me brimming over with knowledge on the differences.

What I do not see as a difference between the two is a basis for ME affording either of them moral or ethical concern however. Which, as I keep telling you, is an internal comparison related to me, not related to a comparison of the two things involved (The X1-Y1 comparison rather than the X-Y comparison I adumbrated for you earlier).

Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic developmentThere is quite a bit of science to suggest that fetuses feel pain / stimuli at an earlier gestational stage than many would like us to believe though... [/QUOTE]

And if you actually read the link rather than merely cite it, you will find that evidence for it is thin on the ground and consists almost entirely of merely observing the reaction of the fetus to stimulus. And as I keep repeating at you over and over.... we KNOW the fetus reacts to stimulus. Even a bacteria reacts to stimulus. A single celled bacteria will move away from a needle if pricked. And yet you think it compelling that a complex multi cellular creature would ALSO do so? Have a little perspective here please.

Autonomic responses develop quite early in fetal development. So OF COURSE you are going to observe reaction to stimulus of this kind. You could not BUT observe it. But once again, that does not mean anyone or anything is "feeling" pain.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In any event we don't really need to focus on such young fetuses as you apparently have no moral or ethical regard for fetuses at any stage of human development

Given I have said percisely the exact opposite to this in numerous posts, including posts to you, I can only include this in the never ever increasing list of things you have wantonly and willfully misrepresented.

I made it VERY clear in no small number of posts that there is some point in the developmental process when my ethical concerns do come on line, and a second moral agency comes into play.

I have made it VERY clear that I argue for abortion on demand only up to 16-20 weeks because after this point I very much DO start to have moral and ethical concerns.

And I even commented at my complete disgust at the ONE user on the forum who DOES argue for allowing abortion at ANY stage in the development, up to and including the day before birth.

I have said this to you directly more than once and to other users too. So this gob smacking campaign of slander, misrepresentation and distortion you are engaged in is simply transparently and demonstrably outlandish and is reaching a level of dishonesty I simply have never encountered on this forum before.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Back to bacteria again, eh. We are not talking about pathogens, dude, we are talking about prenatal human development. Maybe you struggle with moral and ethical concern for our species at that stage, but many of us don't and for sound reasons.

The reference to bacteria has one purpose and one purpose only, which is to show that response to stimulus is not something we can read too much into.

I have no struggle with moral and ethical concern for our species at all, though your own struggle with honestly representing and responding to my position is awe inspiring.

And the reasons for your holding moral and ethical concern for a fetus at, say, 12 week, are not "sound reasons". They are compelling and emotional reasons, and I understand them entirely, but sound they are not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol "Human shaped, making human like movements??" Yeah, I'm down in Smyth's every day crying about how their battery operated dolls are being mistreated

Yet that caricature of your own position, which you offer in jest, is little different from the reality. Because essentially the two things are the same in the context of sentience, consciousness and subjective awareness. The difference is that one is biological, but there is no more reason to think there are lights on with anyone home in either. So your humorous caricature is actually quite telling and representative and makes my point more than yours, even if you do not realize it yourself.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You get nothing. You think you do, you think have a grasp of the opposing side of the debate but you do not.

There is that "knack" we spoke of in my previous post that you have of offering an asserted description of me or my position, without moving to establish the description is apt.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's just yet more condescending clap trap about how your opinion is science based and everyone's else's is just emotionally based and incoherent.

And you could very quickly establish THAT it is "clap trap" were you to provide a coherent basis for your position. The simple fact is however you have not done so, and have smoke screened that failure with some of the most egregious distortions of my position that I have ever witnessed.

But it is strange you call it clap trap that I think your opinion is merely based on emotion when you yourself, in this very post, ADMITTED as much. So in one breath you tell me I am right that your position is an emotional reaction, and in the next you call me it is clap trap that I claim your position is an emotional reaction. You are not even being INTERNALLY coherent and consistent now.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And there we have it again. This from the guy was whinging about how health care should focus on women who are actually alive and not on fetuses that just had the potential to exist. Why should your emotionally fueled opinion (and it is) be considered any more legitimate that anyone else's opinion one wonders.

Because the position I have espoused is not emotionally fueled or driven, that's why.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Blobs "of biological matter"?? All fetuses?? And you have the cheek to refer to other users' arguments as 'incoherent'

Why, what do you feel is incoherent here? And no, I never once said "all", and as I pointed out earlier in this post I have been nothing BUT clear on what I am referring to, when, and why. Your distortions to the contrary do not make the facts simply go away.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

According to you only one moral agent involved but there is a reason that abortion over 24 weeks is illegal in most civilized parts of the world and that is because the vast majority of people are capable of seeing that there is another...

Nice of you to catch up with me then because that is PRECISELY when I think we should start showing concern that another moral agency has come, or is coming, online. I have been abundantly clear that when I refer to there being only one moral agent, that I am referring to stages like 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 weeks for example.

So, for reasons only apparent to yourself, you are throwing my own position at me as if it is some kind of rebuttal of my own position.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

and while you may not have the ability to see fetuses as being worthy of your ethical or moral concern, the vast majority of us can.

I think you should speak for yourself and not pretend to speak for some perceived "majority" you want to pretend agrees with you. By all means if you have a coherent basis for showing moral and ethical concern towards a 0-16 week old fetus I would be AGOG to hear it.

Not least because I do not want to make the wrong vote, if and when this all goes to referendum, so I would very very much want to be made aware of this basis before I go about voting in the absence of it. I would be DEVESTATED entirely to vote FOR abortion on demand, to see it go legal and accepted, and only then be made aware of the reason(s) why this was the wrong thing to do. PLEASE spare me that horror, and I meant that entirely and wholly genuinely, not fatuously or facetious at all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, Sarah Catt "maximized her own well being and happiness"..... they locked her up.

Once again making my point for me. She "maximized" it at the expense of another moral agent. Which is the exact opposite of EVERYTHING I have been saying through this entire thread. Dude.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Rereg troll posts and subsequent responses deleted.

volchitsa

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Mod:

Rereg troll posts and subsequent responses deleted.

Pity I didn't realize that before. That's 10 minutes of my time that I'll never get back!

(Are we allowed to ask who the rereg was previously?)

Virgil°

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, Sarah Catt "maximized her own well being and happiness"..... they locked her up.

As an outside observer to debate between yourself and nozz I HAD to pick up on this gem.
I can't count on my digits the amount of times nozz has said 0-20 weeks. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

That you would post a link with a woman aborting a pregnancy at 8-9 MONTHS as some sort of rebuttal to his position is telling.

Either you are being deliberately/accidentally thick, not reading his posts at all or IMO throwing whatever words you can onto the screen in some sort of petty, cheap shooting ,point scoring tactic.

eviltwin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Why?

Because if you believe it's murder then why would you not want the same sanctions as other murderers? It is either the same or its not. I don't believe pro life people don't support jail terms for people who kill so why are women who have abortions different?

Ragnar Lothbrok

eviltwin wrote: »

Because if you believe it's murder then why would you not want the same sanctions as other murderers? It is either the same or its not. I don't believe pro life people don't support jail terms for people who kill so why are women who have abortions different?

Because the pregnant woman hasn't committed the murder - the doctor has.

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Because the pregnant woman hasn't committed the murder - the doctor has.

She's hardly been an unwilling victim has she? Does she not have equal responsibility?

volchitsa

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Because the pregnant woman hasn't committed the murder - the doctor has.

If you pay a hitman, does that mean you have no responsibility for the murder he commits at your request?

thee glitz

The point of this law isn't to punish those who break it,
it's to stop the problem altogether.

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

The point of this law isn't to punish those who break it,
it's to stop the problem altogether.

I imagine that's the point of any law though.

So in what way does the law try to "stop the problem altogether" when it actually makes provision for women to travel for abortion, in some cases paid for by the HSE?

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

I imagine that's the point of any law though.

I agree, but in this case the can just ban it. Like with drugs.

So in what way does the law try to "stop the problem altogether" when it actually makes provision for women to travel for abortion, in some cases paid for by the HSE?

In what case does the law provide for that?

222233

thee glitz wrote: »

The point of this law isn't to punish those who break it,
it's to stop the problem altogether.

i must say it's doing a fantastic job - diverting the problem elsewhere, I take serious issue with the amount of incapable parents in this country.

thee glitz

222233 wrote: »

i must say it's doing a fantastic job - diverting the problem elsewhere, I take serious issue with the amount of incapable parents in this country.

If the government makes provisions for women to travel for abortions, it's faciliting them, not diverting any problem.

If parents are incapable, they should seek assistance. That's a different matter.

222233

thee glitz wrote: »

If the government makes provisions for women to travel for abortions, it's faciliting them, not diverting any problem.

If parents are incapable, they should seek assistance. That's a different matter.

My mistake I thought you were referring to the eighth

thee glitz

222233 wrote: »

My mistake I thought you were referring to the eighth

Ah, I see. I was looking to find out what provisions are made for women, and how consistent they are with the 8th.

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

I agree, but in this case the can just ban it. Like with drugs.

Not sure what you're saying here.

thee glitz wrote: »

In what case does the law provide for that?

Through the 13th and 14th amendments, right to information and right to travel.
Pregnant minors in the care of the HSE have been taken to the UK for abortions paid for by the HSE. I believe other vulnerable women (asylum seekers for example) have also availed of this possibility, but I'm not sure how the Ms Y case has affected that.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure what you're saying here.

The state makes something illegal, like the consumption of narcotics, but doesn't need to prosecute junkies. It instead cuts off the supply. As it does with abortion.

Through the 13th and 14th amendments, right to information and right to travel.
Pregnant minors in the care of the HSE have been taken to the UK for abortions paid for by the HSE.
I believe other vulnerable women (asylum seekers for example) have also availed of this possibility, but I'm not sure how the Ms Y case has affected that.

Why would they do this?

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

The state makes something illegal, like the consumption of narcotics, but doesn't need to prosecute junkies. It instead cuts off the supply. As it does with abortion.

Why would they do this?

Because your comparison with narcotics isn't a good one.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

Because your comparison with narcotics isn't a good one.

makes no sense.

My comparison does make sense if you think about it-
Theft is illegal, so is assault, but the state doesn't / can't take measures to ensure no-one does it. They use punishment as a deterrent and, if a case is proven, incarceration may then be employed as a preventative measure.

Abortion is illegal so they don't allow abortionplexes to open. Consumption of narcotics is also, so they take measures to intercept supply. In theory, there's no need to prosecute drug use or abortion, because it can't exist.

Clandestine

Anyone else sick of the black and white narrative there seems to be with abortion?

-If you're for abortion, you're a baby killer
-If you are against it, you must hate women/women's rights

Never seem to hear anything in between in the news or in the media etc.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

I agree, but in this case the can just ban it. Like with drugs.........

And that works so well - there are no addicts on the streets, no overdoses, no one with any drug probs

rainbow kirby

thee glitz wrote: »

Yes - I've put out the idea of a replacement for the 8th amendment a few times but never got any response on it.

The constitution was never the place for dealing with abortion - it's something that should have only been dealt with through legislation. It doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be removed, followed by completely rewriting the current legislation.

thee glitz

Clandestine wrote: »

Anyone else sick of the black and white narrative there seems to be with abortion?

Yes - I've put out the idea of a replacement for the 8th amendment a few times but never got any response on it.

gctest50 wrote: »

And that works so well - there are no addicts on the streets, no overdoses, no one with any drug probs

I think you've missed my point. It was about crime prevention vs retrospective punishment.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The constitution was never the place for dealing with abortion - it's something that should have only been dealt with through legislation. It doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be removed, followed by completely rewriting the current legislation.

Why?

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

.....
I think you've missed my point. It was about crime prevention ....

I think you've missed my point

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away

eg.
Fraud is illegal - still happens

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is why the analogy fails, because at the point where most people WANT to argue for abortion, say 12, 16, 20 weeks, there is no "innocent life" to protect OTHER than that of the mother. So analogies to situations where law or morals are established to protect other moral agents simply miss the mark, regardless of how emotionally invested you appear to be in that analogy.

For the last time: You said my analogy "entirely failed" as (in your opinion) there was no second moral agent. I pointed out to that saying that implies that they analogy would be sound if it solely concerned fetuses that were at an age where you did have moral concern for them and ever since you have been running from that point.. and doing mental gymnastics in a attempt not have to concede that it. In the UK women can have abortions up until 24 weeks, you have now clarified (at last) that you have moral concern for fetuses at 20 weeks+ and so that means my analogy is perfectly sound in that context (for at least four weeks).

By the way, the analogy is always sound as the laws in this country consider all stages of fetal life as "innocent life" to be protected and so it doesn't matter if you decide that you don't see a fetuses life below 20 weeks as a moral agent, as the analogy isn't about you, it's about the legislation and what the intention of it is.......... but just in regard to your good self, I'll happily concede that the analogy is only sound for four weeks in the context of the what is available in the UK to women travelling from Ireland. Can you extend that much? That the analogy doesn't "entirely" fail?

I have said this to you directly more than once..

Not to me you didn't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to clarify it. If you can find any post you made to me, where you clarified that you had moral concern for 20+ week old fetuses, then quote (not link) it. Cheers. Either way, I am not aware of it.

I mention and mentioned the age(s) of the fetus I am referring to many many times. Simply trawling through all my posts looking for the ONE or TWO times that I failed to do so does not indicate my position has changed on the matter, especially when it has not.

You're complaining that I cited the 'one or two times' where you failed to mention the age of a fetus when saying you had no moral concern for them, but yet you had no problem lecturing me, over and over and over again the 'one time' I didn't emphasize that you were 'speaking morally'. Talk about rich. Maybe if you don't always remember to emphasis every single word, you shouldn't expect others too.

I have been nothing BUT clear on the time periods I use in all my arguments, and to pretend or presume otherwise is remarkably dishonest and disingenuous of you.

My first post on this thread was the 472nd reply on the thread, so maybe I missed it. The reason I asked for clarification was because the first time you equated rocks with fetuses, with regards to your moral and ethical concern for them (or lack thereof) you made no reference to their gestational stage.

Here is the FIRST time on the thread you made the equation:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My own position on abortion was formed when I decided to not only sit down and REALLY understand what I mean by those words.... but specifically what I mean by them in the context of a fetus or the subject of abortion.

And what I realized is there is no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus. All the things I would hang moral or ethical concern off..... say the faculty of human consciousness and sentience for example..... are simply ABSENT in the fetus. And in the absence of these things I have no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock.

In the last line of the above you stated that you had "no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock" but at no time did you talk about the age of the fetuses to which you were referring. Now, granted, at the end of that post you went on to briefly reference a 16 week old fetus but you did so only in the context of saying that you believe it "a nonsense" to even attempt to seek sentience and consciousness in fetuses of that age.

Clearly you don't, but I am just pointing out that this is not coherent or intellectually rigorous. You are observing autonomic responses that do not in any way indicate sentience, or the faculty of sentience, in a fetus from 0 to 20 weeks, for example. By that stage sure, it is human shaped, making very human movements, and I GET IT that this lights up the moral centers of your brain.

Thank you for clarifying the 0-20 weeks in this post at least but no, my opinions are not just based on things which 'light up the moral centres' of my brain. I understand your position though, it's quite a common one for someone with your views to take, to just assume people are not as considered as you are and that their views are just emotion based. It has been pointed out to you many times on this thread now that some people have a moral concern for fetuses based not just on what they are but also for what they are in the process of becoming. You refer to these arguments as incoherent but they are not. In any case, who are you to decide that lack of sentience is the point at which all arguments regarding moral concern for fetal life stop being coherent?

Except they do believe it. But the context you insist on ignoring is that BEHIND that slogan is a wealth of detail on what they mean by it, when they apply it.

That is the whole point of slogans. They are meant to grab the attention and invite further discourse on the topic of the slogan. They are not meant to be taken on their own, with no context, and with no assumption that there is a LOT more thought, caveats, context and detail behind them.

Again, I am fully aware of the context in which these slogans are used. What you need to understand is that there is a difference between someone 'ignoring' something and 'disagreeing with it'. When a person (man or woman) says (in the context of the abortion debate) that it's 'HER BODY, HER CHOICE' what they are doing is making a fundamental statement that they believe nobody should have a right to tell a pregnant woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Now, if that person then turns around and says that they think that society should be able to tell pregnant women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies (just at a slightly stage of fetal development than the people they were ranting at five minutes ago) ..... well then that's just blatant hypocrisy and no amount of nonsense about context will make it any less so.

Absolutely not, I entirely agree. It is perfectly reasonable, perfectly understandable, and perfectly justifiable. It just happens to also be entirely wrong, misplaced, misleading and unsubstantiated.

Believing in things which are unsubstantiated doesn't mean they are wrongheaded let alone incoherent. Some of us allow our opinions to be informed by science and then there are some of us that are slaves to it, refusing to hear anything else unless it has been backed up by rigorous scientific study and that is as illogical as praying to rain Gods for a good harvest. The scientific consensus changes, often, and so to hang your opinions on it, all the damn time, is foolish. Only recently I was watching a docu about Prof Adrian Owen who has communicated with patients thought to be in a vegetative state and now as a result of his research the medical consensus is far different than what it was before. Normal of course but if change is so common, why hold so damn tight to it and sneer at others that do not?

we KNOW the fetus reacts to stimulus. Even a bacteria reacts to stimulus. A single celled bacteria will move away from a needle if pricked. And yet you think it compelling that a complex multi cellular creature would ALSO do so? Have a little perspective here please.

You are comparing fetuses to single celled bacteria, and you're telling me to have perspective? Just because bacteria move away from needle pricks, doesn't mean it's happening for the same reason and even if it was, we are talking about human fetuses and so it's illogical to suggest that we should have the same moral regard for the same behavior in both.

Because the position I have espoused is not emotionally fueled or driven, that's why.

Of course it is. You speak of women getting on with their lives, bettering themselves, their well being, their happiness... how is that any less emotive than when others say it's abhorrent to abort a 16-week-old fetuses because their life needs to be given regard? It isn't. Not that there is anything wrong with there being an emotional aspect to forming an opinion on such issues. I would vote to repeal the 8th as I feel women deserve better treatment if their life is in danger when they are pregnant. I would vote to make abortion on demand legal for up to 12 weeks, maybe a little more, because I see what happens in counties where there is no option to pop on a plane, have an abortion and come home like we have here. All those decisions were arrived at because of how I felt emotionally when reading about those things in the media over the years, as I have empathy and so I find it ludicrous that I (or anyone for that matter) should be ridiculed if and when they allow how they feel to inform their views on an aspect abortion with respect to a devolving fetus. Fine to have empathic feelings for pregnant women considering abortion, but not for the developing fetus it would seem .

If an young athlete, or a medical student is in an accident in which the other party is deemed to be at fault, then when it is being considered how much compensation the court should award them, what they were on their way to becoming will be considering relevant as we value humans not just on where they are currently, but their potential also. So why should we not have a similar regard for what developing fetal life in the womb is on the way to becoming? too What is that not of value? And I know saying something is going to be something is saying that it is not that yet, but pointing that out misses the point that a person's potential is something humans put value on and there is no reason why we should not also afford the potential of a developing fetus is becoming as of being of some value also.

Nice of you to catch up with me

I didn't 'catch up' with you. This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y was actually saying changes..... person X assumes (often falsely) that this is because person Y has caught up with them.

It appears, in the absence of you presenting evidence to the contrary, that you are. You have merely asserted the movement is in response to sound, yet you have not established this assertion in any way.

I asserted nothing. Studies have all but confirmed that fetuses as young as 16-weeks respond to auditory stimuli:

Fetal facial expression in response to intravaginal music emission

At present, our data appear to suggest two interpretations: that intravaginal application, with fewer obstacles, could be more effective in transmitting music to the fetus, and that the fetus might perceive these higher frequencies at an earlier age than reported to date. In this regard, we observed a response to IVM in fetuses of all ages from as early as week 16.

Cochlea and middle ear are already formed at week 15, although they are traditionally considered to become functional at week 20.

However, such an early response registered in our study suggests the involvement of anatomical elements and neural substrates formed at an earlier stage. Thus, our results suggest possibly earlier functioning, although the intensity or quality of the perception remains unknown.

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

I think you've missed my point

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away

eg.
Fraud is illegal - still happens

This is really simple. Abortion is illegal and requires the provision of specialised 'services'. The state bans the provision of such in a proactive manner, thus ensuring it doesn't happen.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

This is really simple. Abortion is illegal and requires the provision of specialised 'services'. The state bans the provision of such in a proactive manner, thus ensuring it doesn't happen

It will happen anyway even if it is illegal

Jayop

thee glitz wrote: »

This is really simple. Abortion is illegal and requires the provision of specialised 'services'. The state bans the provision of such in a proactive manner, thus ensuring it doesn't happen.

Services like medication you can easily buy online and have delivered to Ireland?

It happens plenty in Ireland

thee glitz

Jayop wrote: »

Services like medication you can easily buy online and have delivered to Ireland?

It happens plenty in Ireland

But how to punish it if a deterrent is required?
It's a difficult one, but the likelihood of reoffending would have to be determined. A difficult question itself.

Jayop

thee glitz wrote: »

But how to punish it if a deterrent is required?
It's a difficult one, but the likelihood of reoffending would have to be determined. A difficult question itself.

How about not punishing it and allowing the services to be available locally with proper advice and supervision if needed.

thee glitz

Jayop wrote: »

How about not punishing it and allowing the services to be available locally with proper advice and supervision if needed.

Abortion on demand is reprehensible to me, so I wouldn't support that.