The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Purple Mountain

I'm late to this thread so apologies if this has been addressed.
I'm not pedalling either side here but has anyone outlined funding for abortion services if it's legalised?
Will it be through the HSE or private clinics?
Will it be covered by medical card/health insurance?
Also, from my understanding it would be a pill induced abortion and not surgical.
If a lady is say 12 weeks pregnant I'm assuming that's a more substantial miscarriage than a 3 week miscarriage and would they need to be under supervision and not sent home to pass the foetus?

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

I do not think it does. But even if we magically pretend you are right and it does.... so what. We do not legislate for selfishness nor should we.

RobertKK

Riskymove wrote: »

if someone was to harm a pregnant woman resulting in the loss of the foetus ...would the person be charged with murder?

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

You want laws that are based on peoples FEELINGS? So if someone feels something was a murder, it should be a murder? And if they don't it should not?

Wow. I seriously hope you have no actual input into law.

swampgas

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

How do you know if an an abortion has zilch importance in the scheme of things?
How do you know who is being not allowed to be born? It could be a very cruel person but it could also be a person who would have made life better for everyone because of they would have been a genius. No one knows what they are potentially depriving the world of when they intentionally abort.
As I said it could be someone the world is better off without, but it could also be someone who revolutionises something whether in health, travel, work, inventions we don’t know as they were never given a chance in the lottery of life.

So you want to dictate to women what their priorities should be too? And tell them when they're being selfish or not?

As for the whole "potential genius that might never be born" angle, you might as well try to add something to the constitution that mandates having 10 kids per family. It's a bogus argument.

frag420

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

Glad to see we are finally getting somewhere with you...keep it up!!

Riskymove

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

thats some sidestep

the answer is no...a person would not be charged with murder regardless of what people wanted...as a foetus being killed is not seen as the same by the law as killing a child

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea we hosted a debate in London on the Marriage Referendum. Voters came to it for a ticket price. The ticket price included watching the debate between the for and against camps, and the bus and ferry ticket (there was a number of buses) to bring them on the day trip home to Ireland.

They were not questioned about their eligibility to vote but of course it came up in many over heard conversations on the trip. I did not get the impression from any conversation I over heard, or heard reported to me, that anyone on the buses was under any impression they were not voting legally. They were either "normally resident" in Ireland on a given cut off day, had not been out of Ireland for a given length of time, or had intentions to return to Ireland within a given time and so forth.

Perhaps some were, but I saw nothing suggesting it. I think the "illegal voters" are a small number and are just used as a crutch by the losing side to help them get over their loss. And the buses, I might add, were not restricted to just yes voters. There was no voters there too, and the debates continued in a friendly and mature fashion the entire way over on the bus and boat. So those who do moan that illegal voters came, forget that illegal voters vote BOTH ways.

I don’t care what side they are in.
I value democracy and I always vote and do so legally.
Our country is based on the rule of laws and whether one is for or against any referendum it is wrong to vote when you are breaking the law to do so, democracy is not based on illegal voting. That is what corrupt countries do.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The poll that was released was released at the weekend discussed here and people showed polls of the marriage referendum. Most polls in the marriage referendum were well into the 60% or even 70%. So seeing a poll just in the mid 50% would have me worried.

The poll you are talking about was 56% Yes, 29% No and 15% Don't Know, that's a very comprehensive lead for Yes.

If the Don't Knows stay home or split the same was as the general population, you get a 65/35 win for Yes. If the Don't Knows split down the middle you get a 63.5/36.5 win. Either of those is a bigger win than the SSM vote.

Even if the Don't Knows all vote and all vote No, you still get a 56/44 win.

(usual Ts&Cs apply to polling - it's a long way til voting day)

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

What a selfish bitch! How very dare a teenaged girl think about her studies and how they could better her position in life!? She should absolutely be forced to give up on college and any dreams she had for a career and a good life. :rolleyes:

Even if it could be called selfishness, would you want someone so selfish to have sole charge of a child?

kylith

swampgas wrote: »

As for the whole "potential genius that might never be born" angle, you might as well try to add something to the constitution that mandates having 10 kids per family. It's a bogus argument.

Or that for every potential genius there's a potential serial killer.

Doctor Jimbob

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

How do you know if an an abortion has zilch importance in the scheme of things?
How do you know who is being not allowed to be born? It could be a very cruel person but it could also be a person who would have made life better for everyone because of they would have been a genius. No one knows what they are potentially depriving the world of when they intentionally abort.
As I said it could be someone the world is better off without, but it could also be someone who revolutionises something whether in health, travel, work, inventions we don’t know as they were never given a chance in the lottery of life.

What if the baby is born and does get in the way of her studies, and her studies if uninterrupted could have resulted in the same revolutionary discoveries you're suggesting the baby could eventually contribute? If you're going to deal in hypotheticals like that you have to accept it works both ways.

frag420

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What if the baby is born and does get in the way of her studies, and her studies if uninterrupted could have resulted in the same revolutionary discoveries you're suggesting the baby could eventually contribute? If you're going to deal in hypotheticals like that you have to accept it works both ways.

Dont be so naive, she is a woman and thus she wont be able/allowed to reach for such academic heights!!

_Roz_

This topic wrecks my head.

I'm pro-choice, always have been, but raised by pro-life parents. I always argued with my mother that if I abort an unwanted child, it's no different than not getting pregnant in the first place, as that particular egg would have been passed at the end of my monthly cycle anyway. "It was never meant to be a child."

She (rightly) pointed out that it is different, because in one case, the event that leads to a child has not taken place (the fertilization) and in the other, it has, and if I did not abort, the potential life would become life. You may not be 'killing' a 'life', but you are interrupting a process which will most likely result in a life, and the act of intervention in that should be held accountable for.... something. I don't know what. And I feel this is true, too.

That's what wrecks my head about it. It doesn't change the fact that I would have an abortion if my implant failed, because I don't want children, can't afford them, and would be a terrible mother most likely, and I do feel the mother takes precedence. But I struggle with accepting that it's any more okay to interrupt a process at an early stage than at a late stage, when both stags are part of the same process with the same outcome.

I really don't like the 'my body, my choice' arguments'. It is your body, but I don't 100% feel that gives you full rights over what happens to a life growing in you, due to my above statement about interrupting an ongoing process.

January

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I'm late to this thread so apologies if this has been addressed.
I'm not pedalling either side here but has anyone outlined funding for abortion services if it's legalised?
Will it be through the HSE or private clinics?
Will it be covered by medical card/health insurance?
Also, from my understanding it would be a pill induced abortion and not surgical.
If a lady is say 12 weeks pregnant I'm assuming that's a more substantial miscarriage than a 3 week miscarriage and would they need to be under supervision and not sent home to pass the foetus?

There's no information available as yet.

What is hoped will happen is that it will be covered under maternity care which is free to all women who are ordinarily resident in Ireland. What may happen is that the cost of the pill will be incorporated into the Drugs Payment Scheme (so max 144 per month along with other medications) or 2.00 euro for medical card cost.

Surgical abortions will still need to be performed, these will hopefully be free as there is no charge for a bed for people in the maternity services.

People who miscarry at 12 weeks have miscarried at home, we're looking at a fetus who is approx 7.4cm at that stage.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

Oh look. It's the having an abortion can cause women to become child abusers nonsense all wrapped up in psychobabble. As previously brought to you by your local friendly unregulated pro-life 'family planning' clinic

Ave Sodalis

_Roz_ wrote: »

That's what wrecks my head about it. It doesn't change the fact that I would have an abortion if my implant failed, because I don't want children, can't afford them, and would be a terrible mother most likely, and I do feel the mother takes precedence. But I struggle with accepting that it's any more okay to interrupt a process at an early stage than at a late stage, when both stags are part of the same process with the same outcome.

I'm not sure if it helps, but it's very rarely as easy a decision as the pro-life side try to make it out to be. I know I'd go for an abortion if I got pregnant right now, but I've also put a huge amount of thought into it and have some valid reasons for doing so. I know some people try to make it out as though you just waltz into a clinic before your morning coffee because you woke up that morning and decided you couldn't be bothered with the whole pregnancy thing... but it's (from what I've heard through years of this debate) usually a long decision that takes a lot of time to come to terms with, and even then it's normal to have doubts.
At the end of the day though, it's having that choice that matters.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

From the British Medical Journal

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Goes onto say

Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

The authors are ethicists from Oxford University.

freshpopcorn

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I'm not sure if it helps, but it's very rarely as easy a decision as the pro-life side try to make it out to be. I know I'd go for an abortion if I got pregnant right now, but I've also put a huge amount of thought into it and have some valid reasons for doing so. I know some people try to make it out as though you just waltz into a clinic before your morning coffee because you woke up that morning and decided you couldn't be bothered with the whole pregnancy thing... but it's (from what I've heard through years of this debate) usually a long decision that takes a lot of time to come to terms with, and even then it's normal to have doubts.
At the end of the day though, it's having that choice that matters.

I'll probably get slatted for this but a big problem is that a lot of Irish families haven't had dealing with abortions and see what people who has one goes through. There main dealings with them is what they see in the soaps and it always seems to be nasty/sour character who gets one and they go home and have dinner and when a nice character does get one they always seem to regret it.

kylith

_Roz_ wrote: »

This topic wrecks my head.

I'm pro-choice, always have been, but raised by pro-life parents. I always argued with my mother that if I abort an unwanted child, it's no different than not getting pregnant in the first place, as that particular egg would have been passed at the end of my monthly cycle anyway. "It was never meant to be a child."

She (rightly) pointed out that it is different, because in one case, the event that leads to a child has not taken place (the fertilization) and in the other, it has, and if I did not abort, the potential life would become life. You may not be 'killing' a 'life', but you are interrupting a process which will most likely result in a life, and the act of intervention in that should be held accountable for.... something. I don't know what. And I feel this is true, too.

If it helps; somewhere between 30% and 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort before 12 weeks; that's why people generally wait for 3 months before they tell anyone. There's no way to know how many for sure, but there's a fair chance that any pregnancy will not go to term.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

From the British Medical Journal



Goes onto say



The authors are ethicists from Oxford University.

not sure why you would post something that contradicts the rest of your posts.

Ave Sodalis

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'll probably get slatted for this but a big problem is that a lot of Irish families haven't had dealing with abortions and see what people who has one goes through. There main dealings with them is what they see in the soaps and it always seems to be nasty/sour character who gets one and they go home and have dinner and when a nice character does get one they always seem to regret it.

That's likely true. Don't really watch tv so I'm not sure about soaps, but misunderstanding is very likely a big problem. There's still a lot of shame put on people who get abortions from vocal pro-life and protesters, and so it's not really a talked about thing. Hopefully that would change with a repeal, and a lot more mental support is available for women.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not sure why you would post something that contradicts the rest of your posts.

I don't mind posting challenging views which challenges people even if my own.

Too many people want to dismiss opinions they disagree with rather than consider them. I was asked for an argument that compared the unborn lives in the wombs to the born lives of infants and newborn and the moral equivalence of ending their lives.

RobertKK

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh look. It's the having an abortion can cause women to become child abusers nonsense all wrapped up in psychobabble. As previously brought to you by your local friendly unregulated pro-life 'family planning' clinic

You really went off the radar to see that in what I posted.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is nice to notice you are not ignoring and dodging ALL my posts. Just the ones that were talking to you directly.

But well done on entirely missing the point of the one post you did deign to respond to.....

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t care what side they are in. I value democracy and I always vote and do so legally.

..... given I indicated there was no reason to think anyone on the buses was voting illegally and every reason from listening to them to think they were above board.

However the side point was just that the illegal votes go both ways, so anyone moaning it influenced the final result has the onus to show a disparity between the two significant enough to have made any difference. I not only doubt you can do that, I very much doubt you even know how to begin with the statistics involved.

In other words I was not condoning the act at all. I was just claiming that moaning about it having influenced the vote, as some people are wont to do at times, would be a nonsensical approach.

RobertKK wrote: »

The authors are ethicists from Oxford University.

Who said nothing about the "understanding" you were ACTUALLY asked about :rolleyes::rolleyes: In fact everything you cited in BOTH sections explains why they DONT have it. You are shooting your own arguments in the foot with your own quotes now :cool:

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't mind posting challenging views which challenges people even if my own.

Is that because you simply ignore the majority of them without addressing or engaging at all?

RobertKK wrote: »

Too many people want to dismiss opinions they disagree with rather than consider them.

By, for example, wholesale ignoring them I guess?

RobertKK wrote: »

I was asked for an argument that compared the unborn lives in the wombs to the born lives of infants and newborn and the moral equivalence of ending their lives.

Not what you were asked at all. Why change history when people can scroll back in 30 seconds and SEE what is true? I have never understood lying myself, but I REALLY never understood lying about something you are pretty much literally standing beside the truth of. Here again is what you were asked and I will bold the part you are now using historical revisionism to ignore:

What argument successfully compares a 12 week old fetus with a born child in terms of the child having "understanding"?

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

I really don't like the 'my body, my choice' arguments'. It is your body, but I don't 100% feel that gives you full rights over what happens to a life growing in you, due to my above statement about interrupting an ongoing process.

But we do not assign rights to "processes" do we? That is the crux of the issue for me. Identify what EXACTLY rights are for, and what we ACTUALLY assign them to.... and you very quickly realize that the answers list a set of attributes the fetus not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks at 12/16 weeks gestation.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

There are many women against abortion.
A survey by Newstalk with a polling company found more men were prochoice than women.

Your post is tacking the person and not the topic at hand which shows you have a weak argument if you can’t argue the topic.

Here’s you

RobertKK wrote: »

Being a woman in 2018 means if you are man you are a pervert...

So I can’t follow your logic but it suggests you’re not exactly comfortable with women having minds and choices of their own and somehow feel threatened by them asserting their rights to their own bodily autonomy. Oh and yeah you can’t perve on them or grope them anymore and you’re pissed off about it? Did I read that right?

So let’s ask what is the problem you have with women making their own decisions about their own lives and how does that affect your life enough for you to be opposing them doing so?

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But we do not assign rights to "processes" do we? That is the crux of the issue for me. Identify what EXACTLY rights are for, and what we ACTUALLY assign them to.... and you very quickly realize that the answers list a set of attributes the fetus not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks at 12/16 weeks gestation.

It's not about rights for me, its that you're consciously choosing to end a potential person and I'll never fully accept that it's fair for anyone to make that choice just because of the stage of development the foetus is at. The 'potential' bit to me just can't be written off. Yes, it makes the choice easier and more viable when say they're too underdeveloped to know anything about it or even feel it, and of course as I said mother trumps foetus every time, but the act of conscious intervention to end the process will always be unsettling to me.

erica74

kylith wrote: »

What a selfish bitch! How very dare a teenaged girl think about her studies and how they could better her position in life!? She should absolutely be forced to give up on college and any dreams she had for a career and a good life. :rolleyes:

Even if it could be called selfishness, would you want someone so selfish to have sole charge of a child?

Seriously. I have a big problem with people who can't understand a woman having an abortion because she wants to better her life before she has a child (if she ever has one).
I thought everyone wanted more educated, dedicated, hard working people in society and less people who have children when they are not equipped to support the children themselves.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To me a repeal is important but I think the most important to people to target now are those on the fence voters is the most important.
It's easy enough to figure out TD's who are against abortion and who have being campaigning in the dail for it with years and those who are middle of the road.(changed there mind over time).
Just note not all TD who have being campaigning for abortion for years are strong as others.
When the debates start's for example I don't think those who are a lot more liberal about the matter comes across well to people who are unsure of the matter or people who might vote for abortion up to twelve weeks but if they hear future governments can legislate on the matter easily and change it easily and that TD admits I'd always support the woman's choice. I think these people won't do the campaign any favors.

Is that evidence there are TDs who want no term limit abortion?

ancapailldorcha

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Is that evidence there are TDs who want no term limit abortion?

I've purposely avoided this topic as much as I can but is this the pretense we're now getting from the No side? Seriously? It's not just stupid and illogical, it's fallacious as well.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Is that evidence there are TDs who want no term limit abortion?

You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out.
I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.
If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit.
This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable.
I don't understand why you can't understand this?

ohnonotgmail

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out.
I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.
If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit.
This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable.
I don't understand why you can't understand this?

But your opinion must be based on SOMETHING. Otherwise it is just scaremongering.

freshpopcorn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But your opinion must be based on SOMETHING. Otherwise it is just scaremongering.

It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!

ohnonotgmail

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!

so what have they said?

freshpopcorn

Just to note to members here I have stated that I support abortion and it is clearly not good enough for some posters here. So believe me if you want or don't.
It's my opinion that this campaign has to be has to handled careful and very liberal people regarding the issue might damage the campaign. If there's any mention that the twelve week rule could easily be changed I think it will damage the campaign because on the fence voters are important to target.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

It's not about rights for me, its that you're consciously choosing to end a potential person and I'll never fully accept that it's fair for anyone to make that choice just because of the stage of development the foetus is at.

But all you are saying with the words "potential person" is "it is not a person". And that is all that is important for me. We do not give rights to processes or potentials. Nor do we remove them. I am a male so I guess in some ways I am a POTENTIAL rapist. But no one locks me up for it.

The woman is a reason person. An actual person. Is sentient. Has concerns and desires and choices and (probably, we are not sure) free will. There is good reason to afford such an entity moral and ethical concern, and rights.

The fetus is a 12-16 week old mass of barely differentiated cells, has absolutely no sentience or consciousness of any kind.... and in fact not even many of the pre-requisites of it. It is not a person. It has no concerns, desires or choices or free will. I see no good reason to afford such an entity moral and ethical concern or rights at all. LET ALONE in relation to (or even to the detriment of) that of the woman in question.

Put more briefly: Not only do I see nothing impressive about POTENTIAL people.... I certainly see nothing special about it relative to the ACTUAL people for whom I actually do have moral and ethical concern. Nor do I see any reason why I should.

So while we seem to be in some agreement (your posts suggest for example that despite your emotions we will vote the same way) I do hate to see anyone suffer needlessly and I think the "unsettled" feelings this all gives you are an example of you suffering needlessly.

nozzferrahhtoo

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!

Correct me if I am wrong but if they can be quoted on something they have said, as a matter of record, then you can not be accused of slander? It is not slanderous to quote what someone ACTUALLY and DEMONSTRABLY said? Or have I completely misunderstood the definition of the term "slander"?

Someone on another (I think) thread put it well today I think. The fact that we legislate for the age of sexual consent means POTENTIALLY the government could reduce the age of consent to 12 or 6. But the fact they potentially COULD do this does not in any way mean they are likely to.

The narrative of "no limits abortion" is generally coming from people who want that potential to scare people, but the people it is coming from appear in NO WAY inclined to show it is in any way likely or credible. But I suspect that, with a few people like yourself, the spark of fear is enough to light a fire. And we should not let that fire spread by in turn perpetuating this unsubstantiated concern to others.

freshpopcorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but if they can be quoted on something they have said, as a matter of record, then you can not be accused of slander? It is not slanderous to quote what someone ACTUALLY and DEMONSTRABLY said? Or have I completely misunderstood the definition of the term "slander"?

Someone on another (I think) thread put it well today I think. The fact that we legislate for the age of sexual consent means POTENTIALLY the government could reduce the age of consent to 12 or 6. But the fact they potentially COULD do this does not in any way mean they are likely to.

The narrative of "no limits abortion" is generally coming from people who want that potential to scare people, but the people it is coming from appear in NO WAY inclined to show it is in any way likely or credible. But I suspect that, with a few people like yourself, the spark of fear is enough to light a fire. And we should not let that fire spread by in turn perpetuating this unsubstantiated concern to others.

Yes I totally agree with you here. I am very dodgy of people with the views you've mentioned and I also get dodgy when people say I think support choice no matter what.

Army_of_One

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetus is a 12-16 week old mass of barely differentiated cells, has absolutely no sentience or consciousness of any kind.... and in fact not even many of the pre-requisites of it. It is not a person. It has no concerns, desires or choices or free will. I see no good reason to afford such an entity moral and ethical concern or rights at all. LET ALONE in relation to (or even to the detriment of) that of the woman in question.

This is pretty much why a yes vote should be passed.

People are attaching too much emotion to what is really only a clump of cells.

Water John

It's quite clear IMO, that if we get to changing the law, the upper limit will be 12 weeks with a considerable possibility that it will be more restricted than that.

freshpopcorn

Water John wrote: »

It's quite clear IMO, that if we get to changing the law, the upper limit will be 12 weeks with a considerable possibility that it will be more restricted than that.

Yes, it's clear to me also but not everybody understands this!

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But all you are saying with the words "potential person" is "it is not a person". And that is all that is important for me. We do not give rights to processes or potentials. Nor do we remove them. I am a male so I guess in some ways I am a POTENTIAL rapist. But no one locks me up.

The difference here is you're not going to inherently develop into a rapist if left alone. The foetus will, medical complications or misscarriage not withstanding, definitely develop into a person.

But yes despite my concerns I'll be voting yes. It's more a philosophical/moral qualm I have than a legal or practical one.

Water John

Harris may have to negotiate with various members of Parliament, to find a wording that will carry a majority. A first for this country and a great leap forward in our democracy. TDs and Senators having to think and stand for what they believe in.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

The difference here is you're not going to inherently develop into a rapist if left alone. The foetus will, medical complications or misscarriage not withstanding, definitely develop into a person.

A potential does not become more of a potential or less of a potential in terms of the certainty behind it. It is still a potential. But for me the crux of it comes down to the fact that if you say "X is potentially Y" then you are also outright saying "X is not Y".

This is a simple logical point/step that I can not NOT make. My moral and ethical concern is for PEOPLE. So when someone tells me "X is potentially a person" then the fact X is therefore NOT a person leaves me no basis upon which to form such a concern.

Here is a fun thought experiment that has left two posters running away from me never to return. Imagine I realize the holy grail of Computing, and I tomorrow construct a General Artificial Intelligence that will be every bit as conscious and sentient as you or I (maybe even more so) once I turn it on.

If it helps your intuitions at all (it did for one of the two posters I mention) you can even imagine I have switched the on switch and it will become sentient in 120 seconds unless I flick the off switch.

What moral or ethical argument exists to suggest that potential puts any onus on me at all? Why would it not be ok for me to.... say..... cancel the booting routine (the inevitable sentience that was about to occur), pull it apart, and use the parts to construct toasters for my mates instead.

I think the answer is "None". The potential for intelligence and sentience and for want of a better word "Personhood" to arise places NO moral obligation on me to allow it to realize it. At all. So why would a machine made of meat, rather than silicon, do so? What magic does carbon bestow on the morality of the system that silicon does not?

However from the moment the machine hits sentience and thinks "Who am I" I would see hammering into toaster pieces to be every bit as abhorrent as me stabbing you to death would be.

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Here is a fun thought experiment that has left two posters running away from me never to return. Imagine I realize the holy grail of Computing, and I tomorrow construct a General Artificial Intelligence that will be every bit as conscious and sentient as you or I (maybe even more so) once I turn it on.

If it helps your intuitions at all (it did for one of the two posters I mention) you can even imagine I have switched the on switch and it will become sentient in 120 seconds unless I flick the off switch.

What moral or ethical argument exists to suggest that potential puts any onus on me at all?

I feel the same about that as I do about foetuses. It's not about onus or moral obligation either, if I thought it was I would be pro-life. I'm still in favour of the choice to abort, but I don't base that on the potential life having no right to become a life. Similarly I think it's far worse to prevent a sentient machine coming to fruition for the sake of toasters, than to use a machine that wouldn't become sentient to make toasters!

nozzferrahhtoo

So in essence we are talking about little more than a feeling you have. So nothing we can really dig into with any further conversation as there is no rational or philosophical basis behind it we can further discuss? You just FEEL that something that potentially could become sentient should ideally do so?

I guess I just lack that feeling as I can not feel things without SOME substantiation or rationale behind it. All my feelings need SOME grounding in the reality around me, or I just do not feel them. And I guess that is just a tiny difference between us that precludes any further exploration of the issue.

For me AT MOST it would be a shame not to turn such an AI on. I would genuinely like to meet it and interact with it and have it cherish life and the universe as much as I do. But I see absolutely no moral obligation, let alone any backed up by rational/philosophical arguments, to think I have any onus to do so, or allow it to do so. So while I feel you suffer needlessly from your intuitions, I have no method to divest you of them Though the attempt was at least noble.

_Roz_

I guess so, yeah. I don't think anything will change my view on it. I just disagree with the idea that because it's not yet a baby, it's more 'okay' to abort it on a moral level. Practically, it's far more okay, as the foetus won't know, obviously. Different levels of things. And I also get annoyed by the almost feminist focus of people my age (30 and younger) who are more interested in getting autonomy for their bodies than access to medical care for a god awful situation they will hopefully never be faced with, because while I think the woman takes precedence, I don't think the validity of the foetus is zero, if that makes sense. To me the only difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and one at say 8 months, is the distress and pain for the potential life, and for the mother. But I don't think one is morally worse than the other, just more traumatic.

Still though, these discussions and this thread in general have helped me to hone and articulate my feelings on the matter, so that's very helpful to me

Jim Ellis

Army_of_One wrote: »

This is pretty much why a yes vote should be passed.

People are attaching too much emotion to what is really only a clump of cells.

We are all just "clumps of cells"..

Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks:

The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements. In fact, if you prod your abdomen, your baby will squirm in response, although you won't be able to feel it.


His intestines, which have grown so fast that they protrude into the umbilical cord, will start to move into his abdominal cavity about now, and his kidneys will begin excreting urine into his bladder.


Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human: His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of his head, and his ears are right where they should be.

Tell me that's not a human life?

Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus. I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for. Instead the campaign is masked with love heart graphics as if it's something noble or brave to abort a baby.