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
The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where someone couldn't legally deny us that voice.
The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.
But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.
If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not
So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.
But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.
If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not
So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."
Yeah this is a weird one for me. I have no doubt I would not exist if my very Catholic parents believed contraception was not sinful. Doesn't mean I'm glad though, it was outrageous that they accepted that.0 -
-
This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if abortion was legal, you may not have been born. How do you feel about that?"nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.
But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.
If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not
So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."
I always have the same answer.
A. My mother does not believe in abortion, she would never get one. (But she is pro-choice, she believes women should have the choice, even if she personally would never get one).
B. Even if she did and wanted to abort me, I wouldn't know. If she thought she couldn't have me, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my mother aborted me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather not be born than be born to a mother that did not want me.
I've an amazing Mam, and I am very lucky to be wanted and loved and cherished. But what about children born to women who wanted to abort them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That's funny, because as a pro-choice voter I feel exactly the same way about Kate O'Connell.
She pisses off the religious and the pro-life side no end by just not being a quiet little lady and keeping her mouth shut. These aren't the people she's ever going to convince, but by making them more and more annoyed, she exposes just how much of their motivations like in bigotry and doctrine, not logic or ethics.
She reminds me a lot of a young Mary Robinson, but Kate has the benefit that the sneering arrogant assholes like William Binchy are no longer automatically assumed to be authorities they're male and catholic.
Kate has spoken a lot on topics that she knows since she was elected and always knocks it out of the park. But her speech last week really made me feel that there's proper Taoiseach potential in her.
Funnily enough I mentioned the same to a mate last week, that she would be a great bet to be Irelands first female Taoiseach. No odds on Paddy Power though
In fairness to her for someone who backed Coveney and got cast to the back benches she has made quite some impact since. She has a bright future ahead. Also she has the best hair in the Dail too.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
It's known that by 16 weeks the wiring between ears and brain is present. I made a point to play the piano for my twins from day 1 of this week until d-day. Today at 4 years old they both have perfect pitch, and a relationship with music that is beyond my comprehension.
I oppose abortion on the basis that the right to your own life is the most fundamental of all rights, and implicitly understand that this right precedes all others in importance. I also understand that the only factor that separates an implanted fertilized egg from a viable child is time. Time is one factor we have no say over; therefore it is a willful act of destruction to interfere with this process.
As well, the joy in the life of a child is determined mostly by the attitude and investment of its parents, and not quite as directly on social or economic factors. Attitudes to the job at hand define the experience of the kid for this reason.
What better ray of hope for a kid than knowing your parents toughed out all the inconvenient, negative, troublesome factors and fought their best fight to give you your most fundamental right?
Alright, that's my 0.02, slice and dice as you will 0 -
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No that is not "known" at all. The "wiring" of the brain is an ongoing process over the entire development of the fetus and even beyond birth. There is no one time that "the wiring is known to be there". "Wiring" may be present of a sort at that stage but "the wiring" is a nebulous concept and a fuzzy basis at best to decide such important matters.
The reality is simply much more complex than you are describing. To quote directly from one publication on the matter:
"It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed."
And I doubt there is any evidence that this is connected with WHEN you decided to start exposing them to music. Rather, the fact you are interacting with the musically today over 4 years later suggests and music comprehension they have has been due to their ongoing exposure to it over their entire life so far.
And I am pro-choice because I go one step further than you. In that I agree with everything you just wrote but I ALSO go on to work out when, why, and on what basis we assign rights to other entities. I believe, like you, that the right to life is fundamental and paramount. I just likely disagree with you as to WHEN the fetus attains that right.
I simply see no argument at all, least of all on this thread, as to why that right should come online in the first 16 weeks of gestation. I can think of no attribute the fetus has at that time which validates or makes coherent the allocation of rights to it.
That was quick, Nozz I didn't say I believed a fetus's brain could make any sense or otherwise process information from the ears at 16 weeks, merely that the system was in place.
As well, if time is the only non-negotiable feature separating an implanted fertilized egg from a viable kid, then any line in the sand about when to give the fetus its most fundamental right is by definition just an arbitrary line in the sand.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Intothesea wrote: »There's no inherent or otherwise statement of what I want people to do when they create a new life. I'm stating my evaluation of the fetus's right to life, and from whence it comes.
but that is exactly the problem for me. You did not state "from whence it comes". you referred TO that right to life. Talked about how important it is. But a discussion of where it comes from, and why and when it is applied.... is simply not in your post. Or if it is I missed it, despite having read it 5 times.Intothesea wrote: »That was quick, Nozz
I am a rather fast typist It has been commented on before. The high speed clicking drives people around me in the office nuts Intothesea wrote: »I didn't say I believed a fetus's brain could make any sense or otherwise process information from the ears at 16 weeks, merely that the system was in place.
I did not say you said it. It is the "system being in place" point I am addressing. The system is at best PARTIALLY in place. But it is far from complete. And far from operating at any level that will produce consciousness, sentience, or much in the way of processing of music.
We do have a user around here who is rather impressed with the fetal response to music. He posted once a paper on the subject. When you play music to the fetus, certain autonomic responses occur. Including oral movements.
In trying to describe what this movement LOOKS LIKE the writer of the paper said it looks like the fetus "trying to speak". Which the boards user in question appears to have parsed as if the fetus actually was trying to speak.
But aside from his massive misinterpretation of the text, there is little in the fetal response to music to make coherent a discussion of the level of wiring in place, and yet to be in place, in fetal development at that particular time.Intothesea wrote: »As well, if time is the only non-negotiable feature separating an implanted fertilized egg from a viable kid, then any line in the sand about when to give the fetus its most fundamental right is by definition just an arbitrary line in the sand.
Some are more arbitrary than others, but I do not think one line in the sand is automatically equivalent to any other. Some have more coherent foundations than arbitrarily picked moments of convenience like "implantation " and "conception" truly are arbitrary.
But I believe context is important in all things, and context can make things less arbitrary. We are discussing at this moment rights. Specifically the "right to life" but we are discussing rights.
Where do rights come from? What mediates them, assigns them, makes sense of them? Unless you have some unsubstantiated notions about the existence of some god deity.... then rights are a purely human construct that originates in consciousness and sentience. Rights are in the business of mediating the actions and well being of sentient conscious beings. Therefore central to the entire concept AND purpose of rights is consciousness and sentience.
So it is not entirely "arbitrary" to suggest that perhaps it is TO consciousness and sentience we are assigning rights. And as such there is no coherent basis to afford rights to an entity that lacks that faculty not just slightly but ENTIRELY.
Give or take 98% of all choice based abortion happens in or before week 16. In fact over 90% in or before week 12. And everything we know about consciousness and sentience tells us the fetus lacks the faculty ENTIRELY. If we imagine consciousness as analogous to radio waves.... then a 16 week old fetus is a context where not only is there no radio waves, and not only has the broadcast tower not been turned on....... the broadcast tower is not even BUILT yet.
So I see no coherent basis for affording ANY rights, let alone a specific one, to a fetus at that stage. And I see little arbitrary about that conclusion.0 -
-
-
Ah, SMH. Folks, I wanted to delineate a common thread of value for philosophically arriving at a solid conclusion for how to view abortion, and a kid's right to life. "From whence it comes" is according to this simple logical view-point. Rough-hew it as you may :pac:
Should we have rights, does anyone have a right, what are rights? Well, I'm sure that our existence and how it is lived right down to whether we exist or not, or how much freedom we have, or whether we can thrive or not, comes down to our human ability to grant value and rights to other living things. Without that ability, we are psychopathic -- or a politician.
Okay, over and out.0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.
I'm not applying this to cases where unusual/medically disastrous factors are at play, which I'm assuming it obvious anyway.
And really, you don't spot a connection between the state of the place during the boom, after the crash, and the government's sudden capability to even field this concept?
Have a look at the neo-liberal deal. One of the tenets is free-for all personal freedoms in exchange for selling your working soul to the international winds of the world market 0 -
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No call or reason other than the reason I offered? I am sure I just explained one. Saying there is "no reason" does not magically make my reasons disappear.
But while ignoring my reasons, you appear to be arguing a point that is entirely against your own position now. If there is "no call or reason" to apply a right "anywhere in that process" at all........ then on what basis are you against abortion? You have just argued that there is no reason to apply a right to the process.... therefore abortion should not be a problem. At any stage in that process, let alone early stages.
At least my position recognizes the rights of sentient entities, which the fetus does become during the fetal process. And as such there is a coherent basis to afford it rights at that time. Including the right to life.
/Eyes to higher altitudes, if not heaven Any criteria applied to determining the right of a fetus to life is moot and irrelevant when the act of creation and implantation is the absolute start condition of a process that progresses according to time, an unalterable factor.
Must get off this merry-go-round now, getting dizzy 0 -
-
-
Intothesea wrote: »Any criteria applied to determining the right of a fetus to life is moot and irrelevant when the act of creation and implantation is the absolute start condition of a process that progresses according to time, an unalterable factor.
Pointless comments about your eyes aside, it is not clear what you think you are trying to say here.
An entity either has rights or it doesn't. And if it does there has to be SOME point in the process SOMEWHERE where it gets them.
Now one can choose to arbitrarily pick a point in that process, and shout out words like "implantation", or one can at least try and sit down and coherently make a case for a point in the process.
And no "implantation" is not the absolute start point. Conception is. But just shouting out "implantation" or "conception" is not making a case for why that should be the point chosen. Nor does the "starting point" of the process get us there either. I reckon the reason people arbitrarily pick implantation over conception though is probably so they do not fall foul of having to argue against MAP and the like. But both seem equally arbitrary to me.Intothesea wrote: »Must get off this merry-go-round now, getting dizzy
Disorientation might be apart of the explanation for the poor points I guess. But certainly I do love another chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" which states that "the probability of a user making another post on a conversation goes UP in proportion to the number of times they have claimed to be leaving it".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Intothesea wrote: »It's a value statement that was left in place for however long, and presumably it's a forgone conclusion that not everyone will abide by a value appearing as an emergent property from a bunch of people. If the majority of people opposed it, why did it end up in the constitution in any format, let alone the one used?
Did you read my post?
Even if 100% of the Irish people in 1983 supported this "value statement", it ended up having the exact opposite effect and forced abortion to be legalised.
It would be like having a constitutional ban on the death penalty, which due to awful wording forced the state to introduce the death penalty.
And bizarrely then the most vocal opponents to the death penalty are the same ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the only thing making it legal.0 -
-
-
Did you read my post?
Even if 100% of the Irish people in 1983 supported this "value statement", it ended up having the exact opposite effect and forced abortion to be legalised.
It would be like having a constitutional ban on the death penalty, which due to awful wording forced the state to introduce the death penalty.
And bizarrely then the most vocal opponents to the death penalty are the same ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the only thing making it legal.
Sorry Seamus, it's late here. I was referring to:
The Eighth Amendment forced the Irish State to legalise abortion for the first time in its history. What was intended to be an iron-clad ban, a "value statement", if you want, about Ireland's abhorrence of abortion, had the exact opposite effect that was intended.
Now, I'm not privy to exactly what is the case, apart from guessing that the not-total ban meant people legged it to England to get abortions. My contention is that the wording was left that open specifically to declare a 'spirit of the endeavour". Which would mean our politicians did their best to uphold a certain idealism while acknowledging reality.
Anyway, I might be talking through my hat here, but that's what I think you meant.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement