The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

2wsxcde3 wrote:

Ok, here is the Irish Examiner still having the fake poll up and trying to justify it even though you or I (presumably not doctors) could have voted in the poll. A child could have voted in the poll:

So no retraction then? So the Breitbart article is lies?

Where's the retraction?

NuMarvel

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Ok, here is the Irish Examiner still having the fake poll up and trying to justify it even though you or I (presumably not doctors) could have voted in the poll. A child could have voted in the poll:

75% of doctors support 12-week access to abortion
(Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html )

And here are Irelands GPs openly criticizing Simon Harries proposed GP-led abortion service:

GPs 'alarmed' at minister's plans for abortion service
(Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/gps-alarmed-at-ministers-plans-for-abortion-service-36572022.html )

Something not jiving between the two stories.

The articles are about two different things, so little wonder they don't "jive".

The GPs alarm was the reaction of the main GP union to not being consulted, not about a possible change in access. This was discussed earlier in the thread.

Timberrrrrrrr

NuMarvel wrote: »

I have another story I bet they won't report on:

Boards.ie user tears through pro life red herring quota in a single afternoon.

Pro life campaigners were left stunned today when Boards.ie user "2wsxcde3" used up the side's entire allowance of red herrings in a single afternoon. A spokesperson for the PLC and the Iona Institute declined to comment, but David Quinn could be heard sobbing loudly in the background. It is understood that No campaigners had intended to save these red herrings for later on in the campaign.

In a discussion about the upcoming referendum on Boards, user "2wsxcde3" (real name unknown) made a number of bizarre claims, all seemingly unrelated to the referendum, including a reference to a comments made by a FG local councillor about Islam. When contacted, the politician would only say "What the hell is a "2wsxcde3"??"

:pac:

Eponymous

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Ok, here is the Irish Examiner still having the fake poll up and trying to justify it even though you or I (presumably not doctors) could have voted in the poll. A child could have voted in the poll:

75% of doctors support 12-week access to abortion
(Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html )

And here are Irelands GPs openly criticizing Simon Harries proposed GP-led abortion service:

GPs 'alarmed' at minister's plans for abortion service
(Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/gps-alarmed-at-ministers-plans-for-abortion-service-36572022.html )

Something not jiving between the two stories.

Another red herring.

The article you linked to in the Indo clearly states that the doctors representative body are alarmed that there was no consultation by Harris about GP-led abortion services. It doesn't state a view for or against abortion.

2wsxcde3

Eponymous wrote: »

Another red herring.

The article you linked to in the Indo clearly states that the doctors representative body are alarmed that there was no consultation by Harris about GP-led abortion services. It doesn't state a view for or against abortion.

Could you blame them for being "alarmed"? Could you imagine becoming a doctor to help people and then being forced against your conscious to give women the abortion pill?

blanch152

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Ok, here is the Irish Examiner still having the fake poll up and trying to justify it even though you or I (presumably not doctors) could have voted in the poll. A child could have voted in the poll:

75% of doctors support 12-week access to abortion
(Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html )

And here are Irelands GPs openly criticizing Simon Harries proposed GP-led abortion service:

GPs 'alarmed' at minister's plans for abortion service
(Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/gps-alarmed-at-ministers-plans-for-abortion-service-36572022.html )

Something not jiving between the two stories.

The article in the Examiner reads very accurately to me.

The content clearly states that "The survey, to be published in tomorrow’s edition of Ireland’s longest-running medical trade newspaper the Irish Medical Times, asked all readers of the GP and consultant-focussed publication if they support or oppose the potential 12-week law due to be introduced if the Eighth Amendment is removed.

Out of 388 respondents, a total of 285, or 73%, said they are in favour of the divisive new rule, while 96, or 25%, said they are opposed, with just seven survey takers, or 2%, saying they have no view on the matter. While the poll did not include responses from all 2,500 GPs and a similar number of consultants in Ireland, it is the most substantial examination of doctors’ 12-week abortion views to date."

Nothing hidden, all very clear, no need for a retraction.

Like every poll, I read it with the understanding of who commissioned the poll, who carried it out, how accurate it was, etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 for accuracy, where 10 is most accurate e.g. an actual general election, and 1 is least accurate e.g. a survey of Irish Catholic readers on mass attendance, this poll is probably somewhere between 4 and 6.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Could you blame them for being "alarmed"? Could you imagine becoming a doctor to help people and then being forced against your conscious to give women the abortion pill?

No one is going to be forced to do anything, such absolute hyperbole.

Currently, pharmacists aren't obliged to prescribe the MAP if it goes against their conscience.
I'm sure it will be similar for doctors when the referendum is passed - they won't be obliged to prescribe abortion pills unless they want to.

blanch152

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Could you blame them for being "alarmed"? Could you imagine becoming a doctor to help people and then being forced against your conscious to give women the abortion pill?

No, I am imagining cash registers in their heads, if we have to do abortions on the medical card, how much extra can we charge the state for it? Call me cynical, but that is how most people think.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Currently, pharmacists aren't obliged to prescribe the MAP if it goes against their conscience.
I'm sure it will be similar for doctors when the referendum is passed - they won't be obliged to prescribe abortion pills unless they want to.

At the moment. Then it becomes a "human right". And the pharmacies and doctors will then find themselves in "violation of a human right". Guess what happens then?

UN pushes for international law to make abortion a human right
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/un-pushes-for-international-law-to-make-abortion-a-human-right )

pilly

2wsxcde3 wrote:

Could you blame them for being "alarmed"? Could you imagine becoming a doctor to help people and then being forced against your conscious to give women the abortion pill?

Except they won't be forced so that's another lie by you. Think I'll start keeping a scoreboard.

2wsxcde3

pilly wrote: »

Except they won't be forced so that's another lie by you. Think I'll start keeping a scoreboard.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106205194&postcount=7860

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

At the moment. Then it becomes a "human right". And the pharmacies and doctors will then find themselves in "violation of a human right". Guess what happens then?

UN pushes for international law to make abortion a human right
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/un-pushes-for-international-law-to-make-abortion-a-human-right )

But the UN already sees bodily autonomy as a human right? It's not that abortion in and of itself is a human right, rather the woman's right to choose what she does with her own body is.

Also, if you make the argument "Well, prostitution is illegal so that's clearly not the case" like others have, prostitution is outlawed due to issues around abuse, pimps, gangs etc.

ohnonotgmail

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

But the UN already sees bodily autonomy as a human right? It's not that abortion in and of itself is a human right, rather the woman's right to choose what she does with her own body is.

Also, if you make the argument "Well, prostitution is illegal so that's clearly not the case" like others have, prostitution is outlawed due to issues around abuse, pimps, gangs etc.

and countries are moving towards a model where it is not illegal for a woman to be a sex worker.

blanch152

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

At the moment. Then it becomes a "human right". And the pharmacies and doctors will then find themselves in "violation of a human right". Guess what happens then?

UN pushes for international law to make abortion a human right
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/un-pushes-for-international-law-to-make-abortion-a-human-right )

If a doctor refuses medical treatment (including the morning after pill) on conscience grounds for a woman in distress over a possible unplanned pregnancy and she later commits suicide, was the doctor in breach of their oath as a doctor?

Martina1991

2wsxcde3 wrote:

While things weren't perfect in Ireland in the past, all in all they were better than what we have today with contraception and sex ed being thrown at young people sexualizing them more than they want to be. More teen pregnancies, more STIs. We have more of these NOW, not less than in the past.

Sex ed and contraception being "thrown" at young people can only be a good thing.

How does access to contraception result in more teen pregnancies?

Also a possible reason for an increase in STIs being diagnosed is that more people are actually getting tested. Many STIs are asymptomatic and will not be detected if people keep their heads in the sand and don't look after their health.

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

At the moment. Then it becomes a "human right". And the pharmacies and doctors will then find themselves in "violation of a human right". Guess what happens then?

UN pushes for international law to make abortion a human right
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/un-pushes-for-international-law-to-make-abortion-a-human-right )

AN interesting new angle. Forget everyone else. Think of the Doctors!

uptherebels

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Someone said a few posts ago that suicide nowadays is being unreported. They mentioned traffic accidents. So you're point is invalid.

How is my point invalid? just because suicides etc are still under reported now doesn't mean they weren't underreported by a greater amount before

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

As regards to the quote i made about a link not being required for the obvious, i subsequently provided a link for that point which people then didn't want to talk about. Here is the link again in case you missed it:

I used the word routinely in my comment on your lack of evidence not always, that comment wasn't directed in any particular post

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Teenagers feel under pressure to have sex
ALMOST ONE-THIRD of teenage girls and 8 per cent of boys have come under pressure to start having sex, according to research presented yesterday by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency (CPA). Research carried out by the agency has found that young people who engage in sex before the age of consent – 17 years – are more likely to experience crisis pregnancy, to have an abortion and to contract a sexually-transmitted disease. “Young people who had sex at an early age were also more likely to express regret – to say that they wished they waited longer,” said Prof Hannah McGee of the Royal College of Surgeons at the launch. Teenage sexual activity was highly culturally influenced, she said, and “myths” of early sexual experience abounded. Caroline Spillane, director of the CPA, said young people experienced immense pressure from their peers, boyfriends and girlfriends, and the media, but differed in their ability to cope with these pressures.
(Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/teenagers-feel-under-pressure-to-have-sex-1.790521 )

The point being made is that the media pressurizes young people into having sex, leading to unwanted pregnancies which results in abortion according to the study. So the media helps create the problem of unwanted pregnancies, and is now here in 2018 forcing an abortion referendum on the public to fix a problem that they themselves helped to create.

I'm assuming you read that whole article, but you conveniently missed the whole paragraphs about the inadequate/ lack of sex education they had received

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So now that i've provided my link, you might do the same?

A link for? the question i asked you!

2wsxcde3

blanch152 wrote: »

If a doctor refuses medical treatment (including the morning after pill) on conscience grounds for a woman in distress over a possible unplanned pregnancy and she later commits suicide, was the doctor in breach of their oath as a doctor?

Some would argue that the doctor could just send the woman to another doctor. But that argument falls apart. Ashers bakery in Northern Ireland were not allowed tell a gay customer to just go to another bakery for their wedding cake.

Once something becomes a "human right", people are forced to go against their conscious.

uptherebels

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Could you blame them for being "alarmed"? Could you imagine becoming a doctor to help people and then being forced against your conscious to give women the abortion pill?

your speaking for all doctors now?:rolleyes:

mrkiscool2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and countries are moving towards a model where it is not illegal for a woman to be a sex worker.

And I fully agree with that too! It just needs to have a lot of regulation and protections for sex workers.

pitifulgod

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some would argue that the doctor could just send the woman to another doctor. But that argument falls apart. Ashers bakery in Northern Ireland were not allowed tell a gay customer to just go to another bakery for their wedding cake.

Once something becomes a "human right", people are forced to go against their conscious.

Not really, Simon Harris already stated that doctors will be able to do that. Northern Ireland is also a different jurisdiction which has specific laws in relation to political discrimination which was what it fell under if I recall correctly.

Just to clarify, you've got a problem with sex education, Muslims and gay people? You seem to have ranted about every topic in this thread.

SusieBlue

pitifulgod wrote: »

Not really, Simon Harris already stated that doctors will be able to do that. Northern Ireland is also a different jurisdiction which has specific laws in relation to political discrimination which was what it fell under if I recall correctly.

Just to clarify, you've got a problem with sex education, Muslims and gay people? You seem to have ranted about every topic in this thread.

Don’t forget the outrage for how miscarriages are medically handled, FGM, and the Holocaust.
All from one poster. You couldn’t make it up.

2wsxcde3

pitifulgod wrote: »

Just to clarify, you've got a problem with sex education, Muslims and gay people? You seem to have ranted about every topic in this thread.

I've no problem with muslims or gay people. I've used some comparisons to create analogies with the current abortion referendum. But i am not against those people at all. I've no problem with sex education either, it just needs to be careful that it teaches young people about sex in an objective manner rather than inadvertently pushing people into having sex.

Eponymous

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Could you blame them for being "alarmed"? Could you imagine becoming a doctor to help people and then being forced against your conscious to give women the abortion pill?

There's not much I can do for you if you choose to deliberately misinterpret the article and then my synopsis of it.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying it's deliberate.

pleas advice

blanch152 wrote: »

The article in the Examiner reads very accurately to me.

The content clearly states that "The survey, to be published in tomorrow’s edition of Ireland’s longest-running medical trade newspaper the Irish Medical Times,

was it ever published? and if not, why not?

Out of 388 respondents, a total of 285, or 73%, said they are in favour of the divisive new rule, while 96, or 25%, said they are opposed, with just seven survey takers, or 2%, saying they have no view on the matter. While the poll did not include responses from all 2,500 GPs and a similar number of consultants in Ireland, it is the most substantial examination of doctors’ 12-week abortion views to date."

Nothing hidden, all very clear, no need for a retraction.

pleas advice wrote: »

93 votes on Twitter

https://twitter.com/IMT_latest/status/956898931639808001


245 votes on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/IrishMedicalTimes/posts/1535939343128217


thats 338 out of 388 responses,

can you imagine if the pro-life side came out with a poll saying that 75% of doctors opposed the proposed legislation, and then it turned out that 87 percent of the responses were through polls on social media, where anyone could vote?

can you imagine the response from that side though?

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It will be forgotten by next week.

its forgotten already by most on this thread, ...

.

pitifulgod

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I've no problem with muslims or gay people. I've used some comparisons to create analogies with the current abortion referendum. But i am not against those people at all. I've no problem with sex education either, it just needs to be careful that it teaches young people about sex in an objective manner rather than inadvertently pushing people into having sex.

They're genuinely terrible analogies, one was a politician being disciplined by his party for behaving awfully and disgusting the general public. Your gay marriage example equally applied to straight couples. Your cake example was a different jurisdiction.

Sex education does not push young people into having sex. Groups have actively tried to offer poor quality sex education, similar to that which one encounters in the US. This results in more unwanted pregnancies. High quality sex education results in higher quality sexual health and reduced unwanted pregnancies. This does not mean pushing sex as you seem to think...

Also interesting that you ignored Simon Harris' statement that I mentioned. A better 'analogy' would be people claiming that same sex marriage would mean that the Catholic Church will be forced to handle same sex weddings...

Bannasidhe

pilly wrote: »

Except they won't be forced so that's another lie by you. Think I'll start keeping a scoreboard.

In situations like this during the Mar Ref we played Bingo. :cool:

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Boards.ie user tears through pro life red herring quota in a single afternoon.

Getting perilously near the "banned from thread for increasingly bizarre rants" stage we have seen multiple times here.

Zubeneschamali

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

UN pushes for international law to make abortion a human right

Can the black helicopters be far behind? George Soros! Illuminati!

Bannasidhe

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

But i am not against those people at all.

It always makes me feel warm and fuzzy when I'm called one of 'those' people.:rolleyes:

Andrew Beef

What’s the consensus regarding when human life truly begins? Because that clearly informs the analysis.

I have no issue with the morning after pill, for example, but I’m vehemently opposed to abortion at 12 weeks. Yet a baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, so some people view the “survival outside the womb” point as the threshold.

I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.

But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.

amdublin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

What’s the consensus regarding when human life truly begins? Because that clearly informs the analysis.

I have no issue with the morning after pill, for example, but I’m vehemently opposed to abortion at 12 weeks. Yet a baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, so some people view the “survival outside the womb” point as the threshold.

I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.

But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.

No. No no no. No.

I am not going to dictate to any woman that she must carry a baby. We as women are more than just incubators for babies. We are people with minds of our own, If the woman does not want to carry a baby she can and is currently going to the UK and else where in Europe for an abortion. Irish women are also ordering on the internet and taking abortion pills. I want us to stop this farce of pretending it's not happening. Whether you like it or not Irish abortions are happening.

As a nation we need to accept this and move on. Your argument about society is moot. It's happening. Every.single.day.

Bannasidhe

Andrew Beef wrote: »

What’s the consensus regarding when human life truly begins? Because that clearly informs the analysis.

I have no issue with the morning after pill, for example, but I’m vehemently opposed to abortion at 12 weeks. Yet a baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, so some people view the “survival outside the womb” point as the threshold.

I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.

But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.

Sentience.

It's not an 'unborn child' at 12 weeks.

Mullin beats Bacik in the irritating stakes hands down.

Do you meet many angry women? Can't imagine why... perhaps you suggested a Rape Panel to them.

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

What’s the consensus regarding when human life truly begins? Because that clearly informs the analysis.

I have no issue with the morning after pill, for example, but I’m vehemently opposed to abortion at 12 weeks. Yet a baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, so some people view the “survival outside the womb” point as the threshold.

I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.

But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.

Mob of angry women? Are you serious?
You aren’t doing your cause any favour with smart comments like that, I’m angry because my human rights are infringed.
You’d be angry too if your medical care was comprimised for a stupid reason.

Well my starting point is that a woman’s rights, wants and needs are more important than the contents of her womb.
But I’ll humor you anyway. I believe it’s a human life when the fetus is sentient.

The scientific community have yet to pinpoint the exact moment sentience begins, but most medial and scientific professionals agree that it begins somewhere around 17 weeks gestation.
This would be when I, personally, feel it becomes a suparate entity.

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

What’s the consensus regarding when human life truly begins? Because that clearly informs the analysis.

I have no issue with the morning after pill, for example, but I’m vehemently opposed to abortion at 12 weeks. Yet a baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, so some people view the “survival outside the womb” point as the threshold.

I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.

But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.

You hear that, ladies who want bodily autonomy, whose lives or heath or stability may be threatened by pregnancy, who are responsible enough to not have a child you can't afford to take care of, who want to grow out of childhood yourselves before you have a child? You're an angry mob.

But to answer your question, there is no consensus. However research has shown that a foetus' brain is not wired to feel pain until between 20 and 22 weeks.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.
.

Don't be.
They are not true.
There are no abortion implements used, the woman merely takes a pill. Much like taking the morning after pill.

blanch152

pleas advice wrote: »

was it ever published? and if not, why not?



can you imagine if the pro-life side came out with a poll saying that 75% of doctors opposed the proposed legislation, and then it turned out that 87 percent of the responses were through polls on social media, where anyone could vote?

can you imagine the response from that side though?

Except that they are not anonymous social media responses such as on boards.ie, they are identifiable persons responding.

ForestFire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The scientific community have yet to pinpoint the exact moment sentience begins, but most medial and scientific professionals agree that it begins somewhere around 17 weeks gestation.
This would be when I, personally, feel it becomes a suparate entity.

So they do not know when it begins?

What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?

What happens if they discover it happens at 5 weeks?
Would you still be happy with abortion on request until 12 weeks or would you change your views?

kylith

ForestFire wrote: »

So they do not know when it begins?

What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?

What happens if they discover it happens at 5 weeks?
Would you still be happy with abortion on request until 12 weeks or would you change your views?

If it is will you insist on full inquests into the ~40% of pregnancies that self-terminate before 12 weeks?

January

bubblypop wrote: »

Don't be.
They are not true.
There are no abortion implements used, the woman merely takes a pill. Much like taking the morning after pill.

Well, there are in surgical abortions which do take place before 12 weeks. But the foetus cannot recoil from the instruments because the foetus doesn't even know they're there.

You know why, Andrew Beef? Because it can't hear, feel, see or sense that there is anything in the womb with it at that stage of gestation.

January

ForestFire wrote: »

So they do not know when it begins?

What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?

What happens if they discover it happens at 5 weeks?
Would you still be happy with abortion on request until 12 weeks or would you change your views?

They do not know when exactly but they have pinpointed it is somewhere between the 20th and 22nd week of gestation. There is no way a foetus will ever be viable outside a womb at 10 weeks or 5 weeks, even an artificial womb so it wouldn't change my view.

Andrew Beef

amdublin, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean that we need to legitimise it; let the perpetrators travel to the UK and criminalise them if they perform abortions in this jurisdiction. Just because the UK do something (e.g. permit abortion or leave the EU), does that mean we should too?!

v638sg7k1a92bx

kylith wrote: »

Abortion is not contraception. Abortion is one method of taking responsibility for the failure of contraception.

JDD wrote: »

Well, as a medical term, no, as conception has already occurred so nothing could be "contra" to it i.e. nothing can prevent something that has already occurred. I'm not a doctor but I guess a suggested medical term would be contragravidity, or something that prevents continuation of a pregnancy.

So there you go. The Pill, condoms and the coil are methods of contraception. Abortion is a method of contragravidity. Does that help?

As a medical term no but in reality it is being used as a form of birth control.

Why do people object to using the term birth control or contraception?

Andrew Beef

Semantics; everyone knows what is meant by the idea of abortion as a form of contraception.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The scientific community have yet to pinpoint the exact moment sentience begins, but most medial and scientific professionals agree that it begins somewhere around 17 weeks gestation.
This would be when I, personally, feel it becomes a suparate entity.

This argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Sentient means "able to perceive or feel things". An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be a separate entity. The world is full of organisms that aren't sentient but are very much indeed separate entities.

As a result, an unborn child can be considered a separate entity (even if it is not sentient).

blanch152

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life.

No human right ever trumps another human right.

Your right to life is superceded in certain situations, e.g. in certain countries for serious crimes, in times of war, in terms of particular jobs where people must put their own lives at risk, in times of starvation etc.

Similarly, in certain situations the right to life of the unborn (is it really a child?) is superceded by the right to choose of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of a woman and the right to medical treatment of the woman. In other situations, the right to life of the unborn supercedes those rights.

It is always so in the matter of competing rights, finding a balance appropriate to the current social situation is the objective.

The mistaken belief of some that one right trumps the other (and both sides are full of these), and you are falling into the absolutist pro-life camp, is what causes the biggest problem in the debate.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.

That is a lot of misogynist rubbish you have just posted and you should retract. I am a man, I am entitled to have my views on the issue and I do have my views. However, I am not entitled (and neither are you) to interfere with a woman's choice however limited or free that choice is.

For example, we cannot interfere with a woman's choice to self-medicate and order pills over the internet, we cannot interfere with a woman's choice to travel. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society and as men who care for the wellbeing of women (after all they are at least as much alive as the unborn) is whether those are the choices we want to leave them with? Should my daughter have to take a flight to England if she is raped? Should my wife have to order a risky pill over the internet if she is too old to safely carry another child to term? Surely, as a society, we should be offering them better choices than that? Like it or not, this is not Ireland of the 1930s, of a type favoured by old-style FF republicans, where women can be controlled.

Or do you just care about some tiny clump of cells not yet properly formed and not about real women? Very manly of you I would say.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Sentient means "able to perceive or feel things". An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be a separate entity. The world is full of organisms that aren't sentient but are very much indeed separate entities.

As a result, an unborn child can be considered a separate entity (even if it is not sentient).

Nope, sorry, while it depends on me to survive while it’s inside my body it isn’t separate. I already explained to you why a couple of pages back.

Also, the irony of you saying my opinion doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Have you seen some of the posts you’ve made?!

2wsxcde3

blanch152 wrote: »

Or do you just care about some tiny clump of cells not yet properly formed and not about real women? Very manly of you I would say.

In fairness, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Google a "12-week old foetus" to see they are not a "clump of cells" but in fact a very recognizable tiny human being.

SusieBlue

ForestFire wrote: »

So they do not know when it begins?

What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?

What happens if they discover it happens at 5 weeks?
Would you still be happy with abortion on request until 12 weeks or would you change your views?

That isn’t going to happen. It categorically cannot happen at 5 weeks. Or 10. The most recent medical opinion I read suggested somewhere between 17 and 20 weeks, I’d be willing to trust that.

And nothing will make me change my views - I should be afforded the same bodily autonomy as men are, end of.