Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then?
I explained my reasoning with the following:Outlaw Pete wrote: »I plan to vote to repeal the 8th in the hope that it leads to the better legislation on abortion here, hopefully with it being brought into line with that of countries like Spain, where first trimester abortion is legal and late term abortion is also (if the life of the mother is at risk etc.)
The reason I would concede to first trimester abortion becoming legal here is not because I have no moral regard for first trimester fetuses, it's because I see what has goes on in other countries where abortion is totally illegal (like Chile) and it hasn't resulted in less abortions at all, just more illegal ones (close to a quarter of a million annually).
Also, given that the vast amount of miscarriages occur during first trimester, I think it's really pointless trying to prevent women from obtaining abortions at that stage of pregnancies.
Indeed, you yourself replied to that post and said:That's interesting Pete.
So interesting you forgot about it
0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »I explained my reasoning with the following:
Indeed, you yourself replied to that post and said:
So interesting you forgot about it
Since I mentioned it, then clearly I hadn't forgotten about it, had I? :rolleyes:
I just hadn't checked the exact number of weeks you'd picked, and wasn't 100% sure it wasn't 16. Hence the IIRC, that's all. So I've no idea what point you're making here.
You however are talking about killing "babies" that have "their own bodies", and yet you're seemingly ok with that, as long as it's done during the pretty much random period that you have decided is acceptable.
By "random" I mean random according to your declared views on what the embryo/fetus is - not that it's necessarily a random date for everyone. But you appear to have no physiological or even moral justification (except miscarriages) for choosing that cut-off point in terms of fetal development for example, given your declared beliefs that the fact that the fetus has a body is what makes it "your business" - but only after 12 weeks.
It just seems a bit strange for you to be so certain that it suddenly is "very much" your business after that, and also so sure that other posters, or indeed pregnant women, who may have far more solid biological/developmental reasons behind their own chosen cut-off points, are simply wrong. If there is any margin for uncertainty - as you effectively acknowledge with your own cut off point - then what makes you sure that there is an absolute cut off point where you choose to place it? It's not as though you've based it on anything concrete that all will be naturally bound to agree with, after all.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
-
-
-
-
-
"Probably, but it is not certain it had Down syndrome." is the translation that comes out. That might mean, "we don't know why the abortion was being carried out. It was probably because it had Down's Syndrome".
I said nothing to the contrary. The point is that they gave an explanation as to why the abortion was being carried out: there was something wrong with the fetus.Any road, since your claim seems to be that abortions aren't humane, this is a really poor source - not least because there's nothing solid in it, but because the fact that the hospital appears to have been breaking the law in what they were doing.
Only because the babies were born alive. That is why there is / was an investigation. They mention that the prosecutor's office is taking issue with three abortions merely because they failed, not because they were carried out to begin with and so that makes it patently clear that there was adequate legal reasons for doing so and in Poland that can only be pre-birth diagnosed conditions, of which Down's Syndrome is one of the most common there, or rape.
In any event, you first of all took issue with my linking to an article because of a source and now you have an issue with the lack of details. Why though? I mean, I'd like more details too but I didn't cite the story as a means of backing up a point that I was making or anything, or even to solidify my position on abortion, I merely mentioned it in response to the following user's post where they spoke about a child dying on a table.If the child is already going to die give it pain reflief. Make it comfortable. Don't leave it to die alone on a table. Basic palliative care. Basic human dignity. Is that too much to ask for?
Nobody is claiming the story is anything, or is saying anything, other than precisely what it is. If I wanted to cite examples of horrific botched abortions and bring that element of the abortion debate into the thread, then trust me, I would be citing much different cases than that one.
In other news: this cringe inducing repeal the 8th video that went viral today is laughingly lacking in self awareness."A Body, is A Body, is A Body, is A Body, is A body..."
Unless that body is the body of a developing human fetus it would seem.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Except you suggested that it was not a good enough reason for terminating a pregnancy, when you don't know that this was the reason. The fetus may have been Downs, but that's no evidence that this was the reason for the termination.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I said nothing to the contrary. The point is that they gave an explanation as to why the abortion was being carried out: there was something wrong with the fetus.
What do you mean by "failed"? This abortion that you are objecting to took place, didn't it? So is it one of the three or are you talking about something else?Only because the babies were born alive. That is why there is / was an investigation. They mention that the prosecutor's office is taking issue with three abortions merely because they failed, not because they were carried out to begin with and so that makes it patently clear that there was adequate legal reasons for doing so and in Poland that can only be pre-birth diagnosed conditions, of which Down's Syndrome is one of the most common there, or rape.
But as I pointed out, a Polish woman actually described seeing this happen to naturally born premature babies and being told by the doctors that it was the best way. So it's not about abortion procedure, it's about Poland's lack of humanity to dying newborns. But you're only interested in making it into an issue about abortion. Much as you tried earlier with the Spanish fetal study which was not about sentience but you tried to suggest that maybe it was all the same.In any event, you first of all took issue with my linking to an article because of a source and now you have an issue with the lack of details. Why though? I mean, I'd like more details too but I didn't cite the story as a means of backing up a point that I was making or anything, or even to solidify my position on abortion, I merely mentioned it in response to the following user's post where they spoke about a child dying on a table.
I bet you can't. Not recent ones, anyway, and not nearly as horrific as the treatment of raped children in countries where abortion is banned.Nobody is claiming the story is anything, or is saying anything, other than precisely what it is. If I wanted to cite examples of horrific botched abortions and bring that element of the abortion debate into the thread, then trust me, I would be citing much different cases than that one.In other news: this cringe inducing repeal the 8th video that went viral today is laughingly lacking in self awareness.
Unless that body is the body of a developing human fetus it would seem.
Well of course you would say that wouldn't you.
Despite being on record as saying you acknowledge the practical truth of that point, given that it is exactly what your support for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is based on : i.e. that it is the woman's body and that it is effectively impossible to prevent her from doing what she wants with it without denying her basic human rights.
So a lack of self awareness seems to be a common affliction around here.
Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
-
Apologies for any delay in response. My company is being entirely unreasonable this month in that they appear to expect me to actually work for my salary And it appears this unprecedented madness is to continue for the foreseeable.Outlaw Pete wrote: »You're still saying it failed even though it took you six days to realise that the analogy was about the intent behind abortion legislation.... and even then instead of apologizing you laughably accused me of moving goalposts. Glad.to.hear.it.
Except there was nothing I failed to realize. Your inability to understand the failure is not an indication of my failure to understand the analogy. But as I said I need discuss the failures of the analogy no further unless you really want to, I have done that.
And no when I first replied to it there was no mention of the intent of the abortion legislation in the line I replied to. I was replying to your comparison of seamus saying "The intention of the act of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The destruction of a foetus is incidental" to you replying with "The intention of a drunk driver is just to get home, the loss of innocent life is just incidental"
So I was commenting on the comparison of the intent of abortion with the intent of the drunk driver, and not a single thing to do with the intention of legislation against abortion and intention of legislation against drunk driving. Seeing the difference yet? Because I do, and as I said I want my goal posts back.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I linked to different studies at different times for different reasons and so any chance of a little specificity?
I was very specific, so try and keep up. I specifically referred to ALL the studies you linked to that were showing fetal response to stimulus. How can I get more specific than that given you know what studies you linked to and you know which ones were related to fetal response to stimulus.Outlaw Pete wrote: »One of those studies I cited was merely to show that the following statement from you was, and is, absurdOutlaw Pete wrote: »Some response studies tell us very little, that's true, but some tell us a whole damn lot.
Except you have failed ENTIRELY to show anything absurd about the statement. Because once again merely observing a response to a stimulus in a fetus tells you NOTHING about whether it is sentience, conscious, or subjectively aware.
So other than DECLARING my statement absurd, you have literally done nothing to show it actually is. But by all means do keep trying.Outlaw Pete wrote: »This is why I accuse you of playing to the gallery, as you know that I do not suggest anything regarding sentience.
And that is why your accusation is nonsense. Because all I am doing is attempting to figure out WHAT the point of your cited studies are. You link to a study showing facial responses to sound. Great. So what? What is your point? IS there a point?
How you conflate attempting to work out what YOUR point is with me "playing to the gallery" is a complete mystery to me. And I suspect to you too.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest?
No, if someone appears to have made something up, I will happily ask them if they made it up. How about you worry about the content of your posts, poor as it is, without presuming to control how I type mine.
But as I said it is no actually in the study. It appears to be a half sentence quoted, likely out of context, by a news paper article. It is, on the face of the half sentence alone, as I said, startling unprofessional conjecture.... or just a poor attempt to describe medical terminology to a lay audience.
Suffice to say however there is no reason to think the fetus is making attempts to speak. She would have been better saying, and wholly less misleading, something like "making oral movements that are similar to some of the more basic movements we observe in speech". That would be A) wholly more accurate and
a lot harder to misconstrue in any emotive fashion.
Though I guess I should suspect a drop in professionalism here given this is not so much solely a study, as a paper written by people who have invented a product they wish to sell to the public. I am not seeing anything supporting the line in the news paper article that "The device is said to help advance the communication skills of unborn children".
But as I said, I am still waiting to hear if observed oral movements have a point in the context of replying to anything I have said??? Is there a point here I am missing, and if so could you finally come out with what it actually is?Outlaw Pete wrote: »You never answered the question with respect. Okay, you don't take viability into account, gotcha... but what do you take in account then if you think "we are safe" to abort 21-to-24-week old fetuses at? What are you "iffy" about is what I am asking you.
As I said a few times, I think human consciousness is a bit like a rainbow. You can point at a point on the rainbow and say "We are definitely looking at red here" and another point and say "We are definitely looking at purple here".
But you can not so easily, if at all, point at a place where you can say "THIS is where red stops and purple begins".
What I am iffy about with abortion in later terms is that I predicate moral and ethical concern on the presence of the faculty of consciousness/sentience.
There are points in the human life cycle where we can point at "purple" and say "Yes this is a conscious / sentient" entity.
There are points in the cycle where we can point at "red" and say "There really is no reason to think this is a conscious or sentient entity, and every reason to think it is NOT".
And between those two points is like identifying where red ends and purple begins.
So the higher the number for me, the more worried I get about our basic human ignorance as to the workings of consciousness. I simply do not know where is a "safe" line in the sand.
So I couple what we DO know with a pragmatic observation of what we REQUIRE from abortion. And I find that what we DO know keeps us very safe indeed up to 24 weeks, and absolutely as safe as safe gets at 16 weeks. And pragmatically I realize that 90%+ abortions have been done by 12 weeks anyway.
So where my political ideas, pragmatic ideas, and scientific ideas all overlap is 16 weeks and I see no argument whatsoever to be against abortion up to that point. Certainly not arguments taking the form of "Music makes its mouth move".
So what makes me "iffy" is that the later in the process we go the more we are moving away from where we "know" we are safe to where we are less and less sure. And we are doing so for little reason or gain given very people want or need abortions in NORMAL circumstances at those late stages.
So I feel it better to balance philosophy and science and pragmatism and not push past our certainties without just cause or requirement. While I think the arguments I have on the pro-choice side can be pushed to 22, 24, and maybe even more weeks...... I see no benefit from doing so that scale with the risks and uncertainty.
And on top of that there are political realities to consider. Whatever number of people would vote FOR abortion on demand at 24 weeks..... I think it safe to imagine that MORE people would vote for 22.... more again for 20..... more again for 18..... and so on.
So I slide the scale between what is required and what more people would actually vote for. And if 90%+ abortions happen at 12 weeks..... then 12 weeks (or slightly more for safety buffer, which is why I say 16)...... is around where the scale starts between the most utility, and the most favorable votes for it. And any push higher than that 12 will have to be made with awareness of the cost in votes each actual increase will come at.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571vnkdrWC0
Advertisement