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

Depp

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I always am struck by the contrast in those who decry abortion and argue so passionately for the right to life for a fetus, yet couldn't give a toss for the child (and mother) after birth.

Abortion isn't some brutal, traumatic experience. It's a normal out patient medical procedure, little different from getting a tooth pulled.

https://twitter.com/TwoWomenTravel

have a read through this before you hop on spouting sh!te, don't agree with these girls' message but to be fair its a lot different to having a tooth pulled

nozzferrahhtoo

lawlolawl wrote: »

What mind? It doesn't have one at that stage.

That was, I think you will find, my point

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

where did i say this? the doctor should have his license revoked and he should be punished, also we dont have capital punishment here so theres that...



an abortion is not a back up form of contraception and shouldn't be under any circumstances. Whatever way you look at it an abortion is the ending of a human life and that shouldn't be done cause you or your partner failed to use correct contraception. We as humans are not perfect and make many mistakes in our lives, we have to live with these mistakes its part of life.



Those are your views and I respect that, I agree women should have freedom to travel I just don't want it happening here with my tax money helping to fund it.

If you believe abortion is murder then the logic follows that the doctor goes goes down for murder plus anyone else involved as an accomplice?

If I were in a relationship with a woman and we have an unwanted pregnancy and we planned to have an abortion if we intercepted before we went through with it we would guilty of attempted murder wouldn't we? If we followed through on our plan we would be murderers wouldn't we? Accordingly it wouldn't be a mistake - it would be a crime and indeed a capital crime in many jurisdictions if abortion everywhere in the world was considered equivalent with murder.

If you really believed abortion was murder surely you would want women to be prohibited from travelling for abortions and you would trying to have laws passed that would punish anyone involved in aborting Irish babies to be arrested and punished on Irish soil?

The logical inconsistencies of your beliefs are so obvious.

You want abortion to be prohibited but there should be no punishment?

Rainman16

Decent Skin wrote: »

Certainly not completely, but it can't be a scenario where only the rich can avail of it either, because if unplanned/unwanted kids are all in poorer families then things will get worse.

Acknowledging that many money-rich families are poorer in real terms of what really matters, but still.

What socially liberal people often forget to consider is the financial cost of making an expensive medical procedure, a 'right' of the people. A big factor in my vote on the 8th amendment will be how they plan to pay for it.

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

If you believe abortion is murder then the logic follows that the doctor goes goes down for murder plus anyone else involved as an accomplice?

If I were in a relationship with a woman and we have an unwanted pregnancy and we planned to have an abortion if we intercepted before we went through with it we would guilty of attempted murder wouldn't we? If we followed through on our plan we would be murderers wouldn't we? Accordingly it wouldn't be a mistake - it would be a crime and indeed a capital crime in many jurisdictions if abortion everywhere in the world was considered equivalent with murder.

If you really believed abortion was murder surely you would want women to be prohibited from travelling for abortions and you would trying to have laws passed that would punish anyone involved in aborting Irish babies to be arrested and punished on Irish soil?

The logical inconsistencies of your beliefs are so obvious.

You want abortion to be prohibited but there should be no punishment?

You seem to be obsessed with putting words into my mouth. I've clearly stated my views twice now and you keep harping on about accomplices and other jurisdictions and things I never mentioned. I never said the doctor should be labelled a murderer, I said he should be punished for performing a practice illegally, I'd be more inclined for the charge to come down the serious malpractice route personally.

I think women should be allowed travel because my views are my views, and unlike some people don't go about forcing them down the throats of others. The reason I don't want it practiced here is I don't want my tax money or my health insurance premiums funding something I don't agree with morally.

Its not logical inconsistencies its not being a 'know-it-all-my-way-is-best' d!ck about things.

eviltwin

There's plenty of anti choice posters here who can verify for themselves if they believe in punishing women who have abortions and those that assist them. I wouldn't try to second guess anyone's views.

Personally I've never seen a post here from someone advocating for punishment. The worst I've seen is someone believing that there should be a public registry of those who have had abortions which is a punishment of sorts.

I've had an abortion, I'm very open about it and I know a good few people who don't support choice. I don't believe any of them want to see me jailed, fined, publicly shamed, whatever. I doubt many who do feel that way would be vocal about it anyway and would keep such opinions to themselves.

osarusan

rjpf1980 wrote: »

In an ideal world without legal abortion is this what pro-life people envision?

Let's not pretend that camps that detain pregnant women until they give birth is anything other than a figment of your imagination.

rainbow kirby

Rainman16 wrote: »

What socially liberal people often forget to consider is the financial cost of making an expensive medical procedure, a 'right' of the people. A big factor in my vote on the 8th amendment will be how they plan to pay for it.

The medication required for a first trimester medical abortion costs less than €100. That's not an expensive procedure.

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

You seem to be obsessed with putting words into my mouth. I've clearly stated my views twice now and you keep harping on about accomplices and other jurisdictions and things I never mentioned. I never said the doctor should be labelled a murderer, I said he should be punished for performing a practice illegally, I'd be more inclined for the charge to come down the serious malpractice route personally.

I think women should be allowed travel because my views are my views, and unlike some people don't go about forcing them down the throats of others. The reason I don't want it practiced here is I don't want my tax money or my health insurance premiums funding something I don't agree with morally.

Its not logical inconsistencies its not being a 'know-it-all-my-way-is-best' d!ck about things.

You believe abortion is murder but only believe doctors who perform abortions should be punished for malpractice? LOL

rjpf1980

osarusan wrote: »

Let's not pretend that camps that detain pregnant women until they give birth is anything other than a figment of your imagination.

Surely if you wanted to prevent the mass murder of unborn babies - that is what abortion is according to pro-lifers - that is the logical road to go down.

Depp

eviltwin wrote: »

There's plenty of anti choice posters here who can verify for themselves if they believe in punishing women who have abortions and those that assist them. I wouldn't try to second guess anyone's views.

I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.

Widdershins

If abortion on Irish soil would be taxpayer-funded, then my taxes are going to go towards that too, and that's fine by me! If the abortion didn't happen then my taxes would be supporting the new baby through childhood,and I don't mind that either but obviously it costs a lot more to rear a child. So, it makes no sense to worry about tax funding abortions.

I do think we should have some say in how our taxes are used.

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

You believe abortion is murder but only believe doctors who perform abortions should be punished for malpractice? LOL

I said I morally object not that its murder the same as stabbing someone on the street, I'm capable of speaking for myself by the way you can stop inventing your own idea of what I believe/say.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Surely if you wanted to prevent the mass murder of unborn babies - that is what abortion is according to pro-lifers - that is the logical road to go down.

that is not the logical conclusion any sane person would come to.

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.

That is why there is a problem with the "pro-life" term. Most pro-choice people are also pro-life. So calling one side "pro-life" does not create a useful distinction and I think there is even a propaganda intention there to make it sound like anyone who is not pro-life must be anti-life.

Similarly calling the pro-life people "anti abortion" would not help because it seems to me the majority of pro-choice people are anti abortion too. I know I am. I would like a world where 100% of women CAN have abortions but 0% of them ever actually do.

The same way as I would like a world where 100% of people CAN have a heart bypass if they want, but 0% of people actually ever need to. I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-choice who actually WANTS women to be going around having abortions.

And for the same reason the label "pro abortion" does not work for the pro-choice people. Even though for propaganda reasons a lot of anti choice people want to label us thus.

So at least "anti choice" fits, it does distinguish from the pro-choice position, it is not really a distortion of the positions held on the subject, and so forth. I am of course open to better labels, but for me at least "anti choice" is the one I use at present. Certainly more so than the "pro life" label.

GritBiscuit

The argument for late term abortion is much greyer than early term IMO.

Certain legal contraceptives are by design abortifacients. Preventing implantation of what is possibly a fertilised egg...

The MAP is an abortifacient and effectively available OTC up to five days post intercourse.

So, in the literal sense abortion is already available freely and legally in Ireland. The argument then has to move to why is it legal to "murder" a "child" (hyperbolic pro-life language, not mine!) the day or week of it's conception but it is a crime two weeks, three weeks or a month later...the trouble with the law at the moment, besides the obvious political head-in-the-sanding as it turns a blind eye to those travelling to the UK and indeed offering medical supports on their return, is it is not consistent.

murpho999

Widdershins wrote: »

If abortion on Irish soil would be taxpayer-funded, then my taxes are going to go towards that too, and that's fine by me! If the abortion didn't happen then my taxes would be supporting the new baby through childhood,and I don't mind that either but obviously it costs a lot more to rear a child. So, it makes no sense to worry about tax funding abortions.

I do think we should have some say in how our taxes are used.

Something that is not spoken about is how legalising abortion from an economic point of view would probably add to state coffers due to money staying within the Irish economy rather than going abroad, more doctors and nurses being employed in clinics leading to more tax incomes etc, so I don't see why people are so worried about who pays for it.

Anyhow, isn't our health system supposed to help the vulnerable and those in need?

Depp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is why there is a problem with the "pro-life" term. Most pro-choice people are also pro-life. So calling one side "pro-life" does not create a useful distinction and I think there is even a propaganda intention there to make it sound like anyone who is not pro-life must be anti-life.

Similarly calling the pro-life people "anti abortion" would not help because it seems to me the majority of pro-choice people are anti abortion too. I know I am. I would like a world where 100% of women CAN have abortions but 0% of them ever actually do.

The same way as I would like a world where 100% of people CAN have a heart bypass if they want, but 0% of people actually ever need to. I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-choice who actually WANTS women to be going around having abortions.

And for the same reason the label "pro abortion" does not work for the pro-choice people. Even though for propaganda reasons a lot of anti choice people want to label us thus.

So at least "anti choice" fits, it does distinguish from the pro-choice position, it is not really a distortion of the positions held on the subject, and so forth. I am of course open to better labels, but for me at least "anti choice" is the one I use at present. Certainly more so than the "pro life" label.

as i've said I come from a live and let live point of view, I don't care what others do, if they're ok with who they are and how they live, sweet! If someone wants to have the choice, work away. My objection is I don't want my tax money going to fund something that goes against my morals. So I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life.

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.

Being pro life means you are anti choice.
If you believe abortion is murder surely you would want the murders stopped and the murderers punished.
That means you would want abortion banned you would want to prevent people to travel for abortion and you would want information about abortion to be prohibited?
That is what the anti choice pro life wanted in the referendum in the early 1990s.
The people voted against prohibiting travel or information and voted in favour of abortion in limited circumstances.

eviltwin

Depp wrote: »

as i've said I come from a live and let live point of view, I don't care what others do, if they're ok with who they are and how they live, sweet! If someone wants to have the choice, work away. My objection is I don't want my tax money going to fund something that goes against my morals. So I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life.

Unfortunately we don't get to pick and choose what our taxes pay for.

eviltwin

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Being pro life means you are anti choice.
If you believe abortion is murder surely you would want the murders stopped and the murderers punished.
That means you would want abortion banned you would want to prevent people to travel for abortion and you would want information about abortion to be prohibited?
That is what the anti choice pro life wanted in the referendum in the early 1990s.
The people voted against prohibiting travel or information and voted in favour of abortion in limited circumstances.

You can be pro life and not believe abortion is murder. I don't agree with the death penalty but I don't consider that murder.

keano_afc

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I always am struck by the contrast in those who decry abortion and argue so passionately for the right to life for a fetus, yet couldn't give a toss for the child (and mother) after birth.

Abortion isn't some brutal, traumatic experience. It's a normal out patient medical procedure, little different from getting a tooth pulled.

Yeah, there are hundreds of women who require counselling after having dental work :rolleyes:

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Being pro life means you are anti choice.
If you believe abortion is murder surely you would want the murders stopped and the murderers punished.
That means you would want abortion banned you would want to prevent people to travel for abortion and you would want information about abortion to be prohibited?
That is what the anti choice pro life wanted in the referendum in the early 1990s.
The people voted against prohibiting travel or information and voted in favour of abortion in limited circumstances.

You're missing the point completely, the pro-life campaign of today is not the pro-life campaign of the 90s.

Depp

eviltwin wrote: »

Unfortunately we don't get to pick and choose what our taxes pay for.

unfortunately not, plenty of tax expenditures I don't agree with and the reason I dont want unrestricted abortions to be carried out here is I don't want another added to the list

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

My objection is I don't want my tax money going to fund something that goes against my morals. So I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life.

I would prefer a small quantity of tax money went to letting a single mother have the abortion she wants than a large amount of tax money supporting a family that no one wanted that we have to pay to some people.

But this would involve getting into the minutia of laying out the relative costs of both options and working out in boring fashion which one would be cheap in the long run. I have never done those workings but I would expect it would not be long before the relative costs of ONE procedure would pale in comparison to the support our tax money gives to SOME people in an on going basis.

I would consider my position "pro life" too which is why the label does not work for me. I am pro the actual life that exists here and now. The mother. Real people, with real consciousness, who have real needs and desires. A fetus has none of this, nor does it require it. My positions are "pro life" in that they are "pro" the life we have here and alive today.

I do not care what people call THEMSELVES really. I just know that for me, the pro-life label is not one I can use meaningfully or usefully in any way. "Anti-choice" in this context at least does describe their position, does distinguish the position, and does not distort it or try to put propaganda spin on their position (like people do when they use labels like anti life or pro abortion).

I think we all have foundations upon which we build our moral framework. And one of the foundations I have is "Innocent until proven guilty". I can see no argument against the morality of abortion, and as such I can not walk down the path of agreeing with you as to it being an immoral act.

Unfortunately, despite the large number of them I have asked, not a single anti-choice person has given me a coherent argument against the morality of abortion. Least of all on this forum. At best they EITHER show me photographs of abortions because they think the fact it looks unpleasant makes a point for them...... or the unduly confer person-hood on it at some arbitrary point and then refuse to intellectually establish that position in any way.

What the moral basis for your issue with it is therefore, I can only guess at until such time as you were to lay it out.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would prefer a small quantity of tax money went to letting a single mother have the abortion she wants than a large amount of tax money supporting a family that no one wanted that we have to pay to some people.

But this would involve getting into the minutia of laying out the relative costs of both options and working out in boring fashion which one would be cheap in the long run. ''

One month's child benefit is more than the cost of a medical abortion (except in a clinic, where it costs the equivalent of 2 or 3 months C.B)

It's clear that an abortion is a cheaper, once off cost to the taxpayer.

Little CuChulainn

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Being pro life means you are anti choice.
If you believe abortion is murder surely you would want the murders stopped and the murderers punished.
That means you would want abortion banned you would want to prevent people to travel for abortion and you would want information about abortion to be prohibited?
That is what the anti choice pro life wanted in the referendum in the early 1990s.
The people voted against prohibiting travel or information and voted in favour of abortion in limited circumstances.

You are really determined to have an argument with someone, so much so that you are attaching a set of beliefs to them so you can argue against them. It's people like you who are the biggest obstacle to any movement on the abortion issue because you are incapable of having any kind of reasonable discussion nor looking at the issue from any side but your own.

anothernight

GritBiscuit wrote: »

The argument for late term abortion is much greyer than early term IMO.

Certain legal contraceptives are by design abortifacients. Preventing implantation of what is possibly a fertilised egg...

The MAP is an abortifacient and effectively available OTC up to five days post intercourse.

So, in the literal sense abortion is already available freely and legally in Ireland. The argument then has to move to why is it legal to "murder" a "child" (hyperbolic pro-life language, not mine!) the day or week of it's conception but it is a crime two weeks, three weeks or a month later...the trouble with the law at the moment, besides the obvious political head-in-the-sanding as it turns a blind eye to those travelling to the UK and indeed offering medical supports on their return, is it is not consistent.

The MAP is not an abortifacient. It works by delaying ovulation. It used to be hypothesised that it may also prevent implantation, but that is not widely accepted anymore (you will notice that in the literature they always say that it "may" happen, not that it "does").



"Where you’re at in your menstrual cycle and how soon you take morning-after pills can affect how well they prevent pregnancy. Morning-after pills won’t work if your body has already started ovulating." Source

Depp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What the moral basis for your issue with it is therefore, I can only guess at until such time as you were to lay it out.

suppose I haven't really provided this to be fair, my problem is I see a viable unborn fetus as a living human or a real person as you put it. I don't agree with ending this life due to inconvenience.

GritBiscuit

anothernight wrote: »

The MAP is not an abortifacient. It works by delaying ovulation. It used to be hypothesised that it may also prevent implantation, but that is not widely accepted anymore (you will notice that in the literature they always say that it "may" happen, not that it "does").

And if you have already ovulated?

Depp

GritBiscuit wrote: »

And if you have already ovulated?

you missed the second half of that post I think

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

suppose I haven't really provided this to be fair, my problem is I see a viable unborn fetus as a living human or a real person as you put it. I don't agree with ending this life due to inconvenience.

You are not alone in seeing it that way for sure. There is just no real coherent basis for seeing it that way that I know of other than emotional attachment to the words.

I guess it comes down to nothing more than linguistics. Words like "Human" and "person" are as fuzzy as anyone requires them to be.

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 fact not only are they absent, the pre-requisites for producing them are even absent.

I have often used the analogy to radio. If Human sentience and consciousness are analogous to radio waves.... then seeking them in a 16 week old fetus is akin to not only seeking radio waves when they are not even there.... but in fact the broadcasting tower itself has not even been built yet. It is, to me at least, a nonsense.

GritBiscuit

Depp wrote: »

you missed the second half of that post I think

I did...and as a newbie I can't delete or edit posts. Sorry.

Depp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are not alone in seeing it that way for sure. There is just no real coherent basis for seeing it that way that I know of other than emotional attachment to the words.

I guess it comes down to nothing more than linguistics. Words like "Human" and "person" are as fuzzy as anyone requires them to be.

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 fact not only are they absent, the pre-requisites for producing them are even absent.

I have often used the analogy to radio. If Human sentience and consciousness are analogous to radio waves.... then seeking them in a 16 week old fetus is akin to not only seeking radio waves when they are not even there.... but in fact the broadcasting tower itself has not even been built yet. It is, to me at least, a nonsense.

but its also believed scientifically that consciousness and sentience are absent truly up till as far as 5 months post partem, do you think by that logic its morally ok to have a baby, raise it for two months and then change your mind and dispose of it then, as consciousness and sentience are still absent?

Decent Skin

Rainman16 wrote: »

What socially liberal people often forget to consider is the financial cost of making an expensive medical procedure, a 'right' of the people. A big factor in my vote on the 8th amendment will be how they plan to pay for it.

No one is talking about making that a "right"; we're talking about making the choice a "right".

You're muddying the water.

It's a worthwhile separate debate, and I already said it shouldn't be free, but just raised a relevant point in relation to the problems of allowing money alone to dictate things would raise.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.

Nope, you can't hog that term thanks. I'm pro-life and you are preventing a choice. A choice that you can opt not to avail of, because it's just that. A choice.

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

You're missing the point completely, the pro-life campaign of today is not the pro-life campaign of the 90s.

Yes it is.

They are the same right wing Catholic ideologues including at least one prominent family who are the leading spokes persons on national media. A number of prominent anti abortion campaigners were members of the notorious Youth Defence extremist group.

They want abortion banned in all circumstances even suicide or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. They are opposed to abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities. If they could they would ban the right to travel for an abortion and ban the right to information on abortion services.

They are raving ultra conservative Catholic nutjobs.

I have spoken with these people when I asked what their aims and beliefs were and they told me.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

Nope, you can't hog that term thanks. I'm pro-life and you are preventing a choice. A choice that you can opt not to avail of, because it's just that. A choice.

ill be voting no so i can have a chance to have a say in the choice of what my taxes are spent on. any woman currently has the choice and by all means let them choose, but I dont want my money going towards it

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

but its also believed scientifically that consciousness and sentience are absent truly up till as far as 5 months post partem, do you think by that logic its morally ok to have a baby, raise it for two months and then change your mind and dispose of it then, as consciousness and sentience are still absent?

Peter Singer is actually known for arguing essentially that I believe.

In fact my position on abortion is specifically formed to avoid that. Because once the FACULTY of consciousness and sentience has arisen in an entity AT ALL..... as it does at SOME point in the development from fetus to child......... then there are all kinds of scientific and philosophical debates to be had as to when it has risen to the point of warranting moral and ethical concern. And slippery slope and "no true scotsman" issues will abound in that discussion.

However that does not at all change my point that in an entity...... such as a fetus at 16 weeks......... that lacks the faculty, or even it's basic pre-requisites ENTIRELY..... there is no coherent basis to hang moral or ethical concerns off it. In the context of the point I am making, your question would be a red herring at best.

I happily admit that I do not know enough about human consciousness to coherently identify a line in the sand when moral and ethical concern make absolute sense. But that does NOT impact my ability to identify periods or points when moral and ethical concern make NO SENSE AT ALL.

And that difference is neither subtle nor unimportant when taken in context. Especially in the context of the fact 90% or more of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks, not 16, 20, 24 or 2 months post-birth.

Depp wrote: »

ill be voting no so i can have a chance to have a say in the choice of what my takes are spent on.

So, just out of curiosity, would your vote STILL be "no" against "abortion on demand" if it was viewed legally and financially as an entirely elective procedure and therefore not covered by medical insurance of any kind, but purely out of the pocket of the person seeking it? If no then at least you are being consistent, but if yes then perhaps the financial reasons you give for your "no" vote are more red herring than actual.

And why would you want your money going, instead of to a one off medical procedure, to paying for the child benefits and other state expenses related to a child.... in this case an unwanted child? Surely if your reasons are financial only then the cheaper option for the tax budget would be the way to go?

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Yes it is.

They are the same right wing Catholic ideologues including at least one prominent family who are the leading spokes persons on national media. A number of prominent anti abortion campaigners were members of the notorious Youth Defence extremist group.

They want abortion banned in all circumstances even suicide or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. They are opposed to abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities. If they could they would ban the right to travel for an abortion and ban the right to information on abortion services.

They are raving ultra conservative Catholic nutjobs.

I have spoken with these people when I asked what their aims and beliefs were and they told me.

90% of people who plan on voting pro-life in a potential referendum are not like this. to bring up a tiny minority of the campaign is ridiculous. Its becoming more and more obvious you're doing your best to provoke an arguement. Because you have ''spoken to'' a handful of people you dont know the motivations of the whole pro-life campaign

Depp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Peter Singer is actually known for arguing essentially that I believe.

In fact my position on abortion is specifically formed to avoid that. Because once the FACULTY of consciousness and sentience has arisen in an entity AT ALL..... as it does at SOME point in the development from fetus to child......... then there are all kinds of scientific and philosophical debates to be had as to when it has risen to the point of warranting moral and ethical concern. And slippery slope and "no true scotsman" issues will abound in that discussion.

However that does not at all change my point that in an entity...... such as a fetus at 16 weeks......... that lacks the faculty, or even it's basic pre-requisites ENTIRELY..... there is no coherent basis to hang moral or ethical concerns off it. In the context of the point I am making, your question would be a red herring at best.

I happily admit that I do not know enough about human consciousness to coherently identify a line in the sand when moral and ethical concern make absolute sense. But that does NOT impact my ability to identify periods or points when moral and ethical concern make NO SENSE AT ALL.

And that difference is neither subtle nor unimportant when taken in context. Especially in the context of the fact 90% or more of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks, not 16, 20, 24 or 2 months post-birth.



So, just out of curiosity, would your vote STILL be "no" against "abortion on demand" if it was viewed legally and financially as an entirely elective procedure and therefore not covered by medical insurance of any kind, but purely out of the pocket of the person seeking it? If no then at least you are being consistent, but if yes then perhaps the financial reasons you give for your "no" vote are more red herring than actual.

And why would you want your money going, instead of to a one off medical procedure, to paying for the child benefits and other state expenses related to a child.... in this case an unwanted child? Surely if your reasons are financial only then the cheaper option for the tax budget would be the way to go?

I'll agree I dont know enough either to argue with you when a fetus/child becomes sentient its a confusing issue and even neurologists dont seem to be able to agree on it!

Being 100% honest if the procedure were to be introduced as an out of pocket only expense with no provision for medical cards or health insurance paying for it I most likely wouldn't go to the polls so take that as you will.

I don't have a moral objection on an unplanned child being raised so I don't mind my money being spent on it.

rjpf1980

Depp wrote: »

90% of people who plan on voting pro-life in a potential referendum are not like this. to bring up a tiny minority of the campaign is ridiculous. Its becoming more and more obvious you're doing your best to provoke an arguement. Because you have ''spoken to'' a handful of people you dont know the motivations of the whole pro-life campaign

This tiny minority are the chief organizers of the pro life anti choice movement. They are the leading campaigners on this issue. They are deeply sinister extreme right wing fanatics.

If they had their way women would be detained and forced to give birth and women prevented from travelling for abortions abroad and denied information. They would fill the jails with women who have had abortions.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

ill be voting no so i can have a chance to have a say in the choice of what my taxes are spent on. any woman currently has the choice and by all means let them choose, but I dont want my money going towards it

That contradicts itself.

You do know that "by all means" has a meaning and isn't just something to stick in there ?

Someone has a right to a home, and we contribute to rent allowance etc but don't give them a freebie. Would you vote against the right to a home based on the above flawed logic ?

I do hear what you're saying and partly agree mind - it's just not a logical reason for voting no, particularly if you can type the above.

Did you ask what gay weddings would cost before voting last year ?

Depp

rjpf1980 wrote: »

This tiny minority are the chief organizers of the pro life anti choice movement. They are the leading campaigners on this issue.

If they had their way women would be detained and forced to give birth and women prevented from travelling for abortions abroad and denied information. They would fill the jails with women who have had abortions.

they have their reasons to vote no, I have mine, they're nothing to do with me and they have nothing to do with why I believe what I believe and quite frankly I couldn't even name one of them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

I'll agree I dont know enough either to argue with you when a fetus/child becomes sentient its a confusing issue and even neurologists dont seem to be able to agree on it!

Entirely agreed. Sorry to harp on this point but I always find it useful in any discussion to CLING to points of agreement and move from there.

The point I have is that while we can not identify a point when sentience arises, we can CERTAINLY identify points where it is absolutely absent.

So surely you can see how this applies to your application of "humanity" and "person hood" to a 12 week old fetus for example? I do not mean to offend or insult by saying your moral position on this is incoherent, but to explain exactly why I find it to be so.

I know I would ENTIRELY reverse my opinion on abortion, over night.......... and without hesitation, reservation or apology....... should someone erect a coherent argument for affording a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern, or relevant "humanity" or "person hood".

Such arguments are simply not forthcoming however. I was genuinely curious to see if you had one as you are less shrill and more coherent that many posters espousing your position.

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

That contradicts itself.

You do know that "by all means" has a meaning and isn't just something to stick in there ?

Someone has a right to a home, and we contribute to rent allowance etc but don't give them a freebie. Would you vote against the right to a home based on the above flawed logic ?

I do hear what you're saying and partly agree mind - it's just not a logical reason for voting no, particularly if you can type the above.

Did you ask what gay weddings would cost before voting last year ?

Sorry I didn't word my sentence better I guess?...

I didnt care how much they cost as the referendum was for them to be allowed, not for them to be state funded.

Ave Sodalis

applehunter wrote:

I'll speak for the unborn child.

Actually, no. If my mother chose to abort me, and if for some reason I had an awareness of this, I'd fully support her decision. Because the truth is, she suffered to have me. She couldn't afford me at the time, and went hungry at the end of every week to see that I was fed. She was too young, had zero support, had to put her life on hold, and still has to fight against small, judgemental minds.
So no, you don't speak for the unborn child you know nothing about.

Depp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Entirely agreed. Sorry to harp on this point but I always find it useful in any discussion to CLING to points of agreement and move from there.

The point I have is that while we can not identify a point when sentience arises, we can CERTAINLY identify points where it is absolutely absent.

So surely you can see how this applies to your application of "humanity" and "person hood" to a 12 week old fetus for example? I do not mean to offend or insult by saying your moral position on this is incoherent, but to explain exactly why I find it to be so.

I know I would ENTIRELY reverse my opinion on abortion, over night.......... and without hesitation, reservation or apology....... should someone erect a coherent argument for affording a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern, or relevant "humanity" or "person hood".

Such arguments are simply not forthcoming however. I was genuinely curious to see if you had one as you are less shrill and more coherent that many posters espousing your position.

I suppose the way I see it really is the fact that a healthy fetus has the potential to and the high probability that they will develop into a sentient human being is what gives them their humanity for me. Each to their own I guess but thats just the way I see it.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

Sorry I didn't word my sentence better I guess?...

I didnt care how much they cost as the referendum was for them to be allowed, not for them to be state funded.

I can guarantee that the referendum won't include the latter. So you'll vote in favour ?

Depp

Decent Skin wrote: »

I can guarantee that the referendum won't include the latter. So you'll vote in favour ?

it depends alot on what way its classed, if its classed as an essential procedure and can be paid for by health insurance or medical cards I'll be voting no but if its classed as an optional procedure that has to be paid for out of pocket I most likely wont go to the polls. Its would be hypocritical of me to vote for something I don't agree with to be allowed but if it doesn't affect me who am I to say what someone who does agree with it can and can't do?

also if its not clarified how it will have to be financed I will be voting no.

Decent Skin

Depp wrote: »

it depends alot on what way its classed, if its classed as an essential procedure and can be paid for by health insurance or medical cards I'll be voting no but if its classed as an optional procedure that has to be paid for out of pocket I most likely wont go to the polls. Its would be hypocritical of me to vote for something I don't agree with to be allowed but if it doesn't affect me who am I to say what someone who does agree with it can and can't do?

also if its not clarified how it will have to be financed I will be voting no.

There will be no reference to funding whatsoever in a referendum. It's a "right to access" topic.

Actually - it's even less than that, as it's a binary vote to remove a cockup of an insertion.

It's hard not to deduce that you're justifying voting no based on something you know has never been in a referendum. Or maybe I'm being unfair - how many referenda have you lived through / voted in ?