The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

January

Andrew Beef wrote: »

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?!

So that's grand, the women who can afford to travel will get their abortions, meanwhile, the women who can't afford them or the women who haven't got the right documents to travel to another jurisdiction (refugee's usually) can't.

NIMBYISM. Are you just another EOTR bot?

mrkiscool2

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).

YAY! Science time, b1tches!

As was mentioned, the earliest possibility of a fetus surviving outside of the womb, theoretically, is 17 weeks. That's because at week 17 the ability to exchange gas between the blood and lungs (respiration, which falls under homeostasis, one of the 7 key factors for something to be considered life) starts to happen. Now, normally this will take up to between week 20-24 for it to fully form, but the fetus is technically capable of exchanging some gas between blood at lungs at 17 weeks, so we'll say 17 weeks is the theoretical earliest this can happen.

An organism isn't necessarily life by the way. Viruses are considered to be organisms but they do not classify as life. So, while you are correct in asserting that a zygote and/or fetus is an organism, it isn't a life. Now, onto your actual point. Is a parasite a separate entity? Is it a good separate entity? Should the host not have the option to rid itself of said entity? The answers are yes, no and yes.

I'm not comparing a fetus to a parasite, I'm just using your argument to show how silly it is. Not all separate entities are fully separate. Without the womb of a woman, up until 17 weeks (at minimum), the fetus will not survive. An organism that can't survive itself should have absolutely no rights.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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?!

Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.

Yeah, but a fetus isn't a human being as a human being is life and a fetus before 12 weeks isn't a life. It can't be scientifically classified as one.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

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

Everyone knows it is impossible!

v638sg7k1a92bx

blanch152 wrote: »

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.





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.

There are alot of "rights" being cited on this thread which are not contained in any constitution or declaration - that I am aware of.

Correct in that this is not the Ireland of the 1930's and there are contraceptive and medical options available to avoid unwanted pregnancy so there appears to be less of an argument for abortion in modern Irish society than there was in the 1930's.

blanch152

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

I must say I have to disagree with you. Your right to bodily autonomy will never be the same as a man's, unless they find some way of allowing men to become pregnant and carry a baby.

At some stage in a pregnancy, the right to life of the unborn supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of a woman. If a woman decides at 35 weeks pregnant that she no longer wants a baby just because, should that baby be aborted? I would say no. Should there be an induced birth? I would say no, as well, because the unborn baby (and at that stage it is an unborn baby) would have the right to the best chance of life which it gets by going to full-term.

A woman has a right to choose, but like all choices in life, it isn't an unbridled or unrestricted choice, not a choice without consequences. So while I would support abortion for any reason up to 12-18 weeks (let the doctors advise on a limit), after that the right to choose is restricted and abortions should only be allowed on the grounds of FFA, other medical grounds or a risk to life or health of the mother.

It may be harsh, but it you choose by 12 or 18 weeks, depending on the statutory limit, to keep your unborn child, your choice is made, there are other rights coming into play, not just the right to choose, not just the right to bodily integrity, and the balance of those rights swings away from your right to choose at that point in time.

blanch152

Brendan Eager Stud wrote: »

There are alot of "rights" being cited on this thread which are not contained in any constitution or declaration - that I am aware of.

Correct in that this is not the Ireland of the 1930's and there are contraceptive and medical options available to avoid unwanted pregnancy so there appears to be less of an argument for abortion in modern Irish society than there was in the 1930's.

A right doesn't have to be in the constitution or in any declaration to be cited on a thread, or to be a valid right or valid consideration.

pleas advice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Yeah, but a fetus isn't a human being as a human being is life and a fetus before 12 weeks isn't a life. It can't be scientifically classified as one.

It is alive, and it is a genetically separate individual

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.

I couldn’t care less if you think it’s in bad taste.
As someone who has lost a child I thought it was in very bad taste for you to lecture me about family plots and grave stones for 4 week old pregnancy the other day, but hey ho.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying anyway. I’m talking about the point at which the fetus starts exhibiting human traits.
Such as respiration at week 17, and sentience shortly after. At this point I consider it to be a separate being and entity.

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

YAY! Science time, b1tches!

As was mentioned, the earliest possibility of a fetus surviving outside of the womb, theoretically, is 17 weeks. That's because at week 17 the ability to exchange gas between the blood and lungs (respiration, which falls under homeostasis, one of the 7 key factors for something to be considered life) starts to happen. Now, normally this will take up to between week 20-24 for it to fully form, but the fetus is technically capable of exchanging some gas between blood at lungs at 17 weeks, so we'll say 17 weeks is the theoretical earliest this can happen.

This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

An organism isn't necessarily life by the way. Viruses are considered to be organisms but they do not classify as life.

If a bacteria was found on Mars tomorrow, the headlines in the scientific magazines would read "Life found on Mars".

blanch152

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?
.

Theoretically speaking, we will deal with that situation when it becomes a practical reality.

SusieBlue

blanch152 wrote: »

I must say I have to disagree with you. Your right to bodily autonomy will never be the same as a man's, unless they find some way of allowing men to become pregnant and carry a baby.

At some stage in a pregnancy, the right to life of the unborn supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of a woman. If a woman decides at 35 weeks pregnant that she no longer wants a baby just because, should that baby be aborted? I would say no. Should there be an induced birth? I would say no, as well, because the unborn baby (and at that stage it is an unborn baby) would have the right to the best chance of life which it gets by going to full-term.

A woman has a right to choose, but like all choices in life, it isn't an unbridled or unrestricted choice, not a choice without consequences. So while I would support abortion for any reason up to 12-18 weeks (let the doctors advise on a limit), after that the right to choose is restricted and abortions should only be allowed on the grounds of FFA, other medical grounds or a risk to life or health of the mother.

It may be harsh, but it you choose by 12 or 18 weeks, depending on the statutory limit, to keep your unborn child, your choice is made, there are other rights coming into play, not just the right to choose, not just the right to bodily integrity, and the balance of those rights swings away from your right to choose at that point in time.

I never once argued for late term abortion so I’m not sure where this is coming from tbh.

I was speaking in the wider sense of the 8th - the ability to consent to medical procedures, to be able to avail of treatments that will help me before my illness becomes terminal etc. As we know it isn’t just about abortion.
I’m happy with the proposal of a 12 week limit. For 99% of cases the 12 weeks will be enough for a woman to make her choice.
So yeah.... not sure where that came from!

v638sg7k1a92bx

blanch152 wrote: »

A right doesn't have to be in the constitution or in any declaration to be cited on a thread, or to be a valid right or valid consideration.

Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?

blanch152

Brendan Eager Stud wrote: »

Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?

The right to choose is a basic human right enshrined in the democractic process. What use is freedom without the ability and the right to choose?

blanch152

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I never once argued for late term abortion so I’m not sure where this is coming from tbh.

I was speaking in the wider sense of the 8th - the ability to consent to medical procedures, to be able to avail of treatments that will help me before my illness becomes terminal etc. As we know it isn’t just about abortion.
I’m happy with the proposal of a 12 week limit. For 99% of cases the 12 weeks will be enough for a woman to make her choice.
So yeah.... not sure where that came from!

Then we are more or less in agreement.

v638sg7k1a92bx

blanch152 wrote: »

The right to choose is a basic human right enshrined in the democractic process. What use is freedom without the ability and the right to choose?

Sounds great for a political thesis or a revolutionary manifesto but our choices are always limited when they impact another person. This is why we have laws prohibiting us from drinking & driving etc.

Grayson

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

If a bacteria was found on Mars tomorrow, the headlines in the scientific magazines would read "Life found on Mars".

two things.

1) Bacteria are very different from viruses. As the poster you quotes said , viruses aren't considered life by many people.

2) Life does not mean human life and even human life doesn't mean sentient life. It's perfectly possible to grow human cells in a petri dish. So being alive and having human dna doesn't mean it's a person.

The question about whether or not an embryo or foetus is alive doesn't matter. What counts is whether or not it counts as a human being / person.

Zubeneschamali

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?

That's the advantage of legislation, yes.

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

I would agree to this.
If it was possible at 4 weeks absolutely

I would still repeal the 8th though, as it puts women & their health at risk.

Edward M

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

Its great, repeal the eighth and campaign for that, after all the govt will have the right to legislate for that if the referendum is passed!

eviltwin

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

I'd have no issue with this either but seeing as it's the stuff of sci-fi why are you bothering to bring it up? We have to deal with what we have.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

I think it would be excellent and would support it 100%.

Loafing Oaf

Grayson wrote: »

two things.



The question about whether or not an embryo or foetus is alive doesn't matter. What counts is whether or not it counts as a human being / person.

And that is ultimately a philosophical/ethical question rather than a scientific one, IMO.

NuMarvel

Brendan Eager Stud wrote: »

Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?

Unenumerated rights is a recognised concept in law, and refers to rights that aren't set out in writing, but that can be inferred. Examples in Irish case law would be the right to bodily integrity (Ryan v AG) and marital privacy (McGee v AG).

In a relevant ECHR example, Ireland was found to be in breach of Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life, by not legislating for the X Case (ABC v Ireland).

What's more, constitutions and human rights treaties aren't meant to be the totality of rights, just the fundamentals that everyone must have. It is possible, and indeed commonplace, for someone to have more rights than those set out in a constitution or the like.

mrkiscool2

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, and it is a genetically separate individual

Nope, it's definitely not alive. At least, by the scientific definition of alive. It also cannot respond to touch, pain etc. until week 28 and at week 12 is the first time there is any real sign of brain activity that could constitute any form of "life" in a non-scientific term. It's a genetically separate organism, not an individual. Individual implies it is independent of others. It's not

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?

That won't happen though. That argument is extremely naive. Hell, we already have a lot of development going into artificial wombs, in the case that in late term (post 24 weeks) complications, both the mother and fetus can be saved (or at least have a shot of saving the fetus). We will never get to a point in which a 4 week old fetus could be transferred to an artifical womb and develop. It requires a mother's womb for that to happen.

If a bacteria was found on Mars tomorrow, the headlines in the scientific magazines would read "Life found on Mars".

Yeah, because bacteria meet all 7 conditions for life? Like, the two arguments are not the same. A bacteria is life as it meets all 7 conditions, a 12 week old fetus does not.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

Well, seeing as how that incubator can never exist, your hypothetical situation doesn't have to be answered. Saved everyone a lot of time.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I think it would be excellent and would support it 100%.

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

david75

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:

• The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
• The state pays for the procedure.
• The procedure is open to all women on request.
• The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
• The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
• If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

You’re living in a fantastical world far ahead of us for any of that but the most problematic is you then have to have massive homes / orphanages to raise 4K~ babies a year and good luck finding homes for that many babies each year. It just wouldn’t happen.
You would also need a whole new govt organisation with thousands of staff to both raise the infants in the mean time and thousands more to deal with background checks for potential parents.
We don’t do adoption in Ireland at all.

Andrew Beef

blanch152, I have never heard such a case of semantics in all my life.

You claim that no person’s right can trump another person’s right, but on occasion one person’s right can supercede another person’s right!

Incredible!

pleas advice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

A bacteria is life as it meets all 7 conditions, a 12 week old fetus does not.

does any child under the age of 8? ie the ability to reproduce?

Andrew Beef

I have a question for all the pro-choice people:

Is it a woman’s right to choose to have a late-term abortion?

At, say, 30 weeks.

Or should society intervene and stop that?

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

You're missing the point. If a woman goes not want to be pregnant, her only option is abortion.
If in a fantastical world where your magic incubator exists, then women could be not pregnant a different way.
Now, the only option termination

ohnonotgmail

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.

you are in absolutely no position to lecture others on bad taste.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

No. And once again your lack of maternity care knowledge is shining through.
In your hypothetical situation, she wouldn’t be waiting 4 weeks for a start.
If a woman is 4 weeks pregnant, it means she missed her period that DAY and just found out she was pregnant.
No waiting, no hanging around, straight into the incubator with the pregnancy that she doesn’t want.

Do you think it’s reasonable to make a woman carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want for 6 and a half months? Babies born at 26 weeks still suffer a lot of health problems and are considered extremely premature.
Viable does not equal a healthy baby.
It’s in no ones best interests to use her as a human incubator, making her suffer 6 months of pregnancy and the prematurity issues for the baby.

It just shows and proves once again that you see women as vessels. Women are not human incubators.
They are people with feelings.
I should have known you’d have another bizarre analogy up your sleeve when you made your initial unrealistic ‘proposal’.

NuMarvel

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but here's what RTE is reporting as the government's proposed wording for the replacement of Article 40.3.3:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies".

The final draft will be approved by the Dáil and Seanad, but I can't see it being changed much, if at all,

ohnonotgmail

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but here's what RTE is reporting as the government's proposed wording for the replacement of Article 40.3.3:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies".

The final draft will be approved by the Dáil and Seanad, but I can't see it being changed much, if at all,

That wording works for me

mrkiscool2

pleas advice wrote: »

does any child under the age of 8? ie the ability to reproduce?

But they still have what is required to reproduce. Your argument is flawed.

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have a question for all the pro-choice people:

Is it a woman’s right to choose to have a late-term abortion?

At, say, 30 weeks.

Or should society intervene and stop that?

Totally irrelevant to what we are being asked to vote on....

Why would any woman wait until 30 weeks to have an abortion? What kind of scenario do you envisage where that would happen?

Andrew Beef

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Do you think it’s reasonable to make a woman carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want for 6 and a half months?

I do actually. As I’ve previously stated, I believe that abortion should only be permitted in medical cases or in cases of rape or incest (subject to the victim satisfying a Rape Committee that she was raped). Thereafter, I believe that women who travel overseas for abortions should be criminalised in a manner similar to the way that sex tourists are subjected to the laws of their own country. A woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. However, in rape cases, the woman’s bodily integrity has been compromised, so abortion is justified. Do we, hand on heart, want a society like the UK’s where 1 in 5 of all pregnancies end in abortion? That is Romanesque society destroying itself. This referendum represents a turning point for Irish society; do we want to cherish life or do we wish to let women’s misguided attempts to be “free” destroy the fabric of our society?

Andrew Beef

eviltwin wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have a question for all the pro-choice people:

Is it a woman’s right to choose to have a late-term abortion?

At, say, 30 weeks.

Or should society intervene and stop that?

Totally irrelevant to what we are being asked to vote on....

Why would any woman wait until 30 weeks to have an abortion? What kind of scenario do you envisage where that would happen?

Indulge me; should the woman’s right to choose permit her to have a late-term abortion?

2wsxcde3

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are in absolutely no position to lecture others on bad taste.

I know, but i'm trying to improve.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I should have known you’d have another bizarre analogy up your sleeve when you made your initial unrealistic ‘proposal’.

Its not completely unrealistic. Scientists have been working on this proposal for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus . Its not beyond possibility that this could be engineered to work at 8 weeks or so of pregnancy in the future. Not that i like the idea though. It just seems, from a theoretical point of view, about as best a compromise idea as could ever be posited between a pro-life and pro-choice sides that are bitterly opposed.

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Indulge me; should the woman’s right to choose permit her to have a late-term abortion?

I support a woman's right to a termination of pregnancy at any stage.

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

Its great, repeal the eighth and campaign for that, after all the govt will have the right to legislate for that if the referendum is passed!

It's theoretical so not exactly an option...

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

4 weeks, a woman will not suffer from a single consequence from the pregnancy. 26 weeks is half a year, a pregnancy will physically and psychologically affect a woman who does not wish to remain pregnant during this time.

Andrew Beef

eviltwin wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Indulge me; should the woman’s right to choose permit her to have a late-term abortion?

I support a woman's right to a termination of pregnancy at any stage.

That is a truly shocking view to hold. I get the 12 week thing to a degree, but I find the views of people who support late-term abortion disgusting.

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I do actually. As I’ve previously stated, I believe that abortion should only be permitted in medical cases or in cases of rape or incest (subject to the victim satisfying a Rape Committee that she was raped). Thereafter, I believe that women who travel overseas for abortions should be criminalised in a manner similar to the way that sex tourists are subjected to the laws of their own country. A woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. However, in rape cases, the woman’s bodily integrity has been compromised, so abortion is justified. Do we, hand on heart, want a society like the UK’s where 1 in 5 of all pregnancies end in abortion? That is Romanesque society destroying itself. This referendum represents a turning point for Irish society; do we want to cherish life or do we wish to let women’s misguided attempts to be “free” destroy the fabric of our society?

I asked you this once already and you didn’t reply.

Can you please tell me what qualifies a 10 week old zygote to be more important than my health and wellbeing?
And can you please tell me why you should get to inflect that view on my life, when if something happened to me, you would know no different, and it would be my family who would suffer the loss?
Why is your judgment more important than mine?

Roughly 4K Irish abortions are happening every year in the UK anyway. Irish abortions are happening, just not in Ireland.
You can’t proudly say there is no abortion in Ireland when the statistics glaringly say Irish women are procuring abortions on a daily basis.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I know, but i'm trying to improve.



Its not completely unrealistic. Scientists have been working on this proposal for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus . Its not beyond possibility that this could be engineered to work at 8 weeks or so of pregnancy in the future. Not that i like the idea though. It just seems, from a theoretical point of view, about as best a compromise idea as could ever be posited between a pro-life and pro-choice sides that are bitterly opposed.

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

But it is beyond the realms of possibility I'm afraid. The reason that it would be technically possible to place a fetus in an artificial womb after 24 weeks is due to most of their organ and other vital structures have already formed and they just need more time to get some little things in place, like more neuron connections, nerves etc.

You could not take a 8 week fetus from a women's womb and pop it into an artificial womb and it would survive. It's just not scientifically possible.

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a truly shocking view to hold. I get the 12 week thing to a degree, but I find the views of people who support late-term abortion disgusting.

I said termination of pregnancy. I didn't mention abortion

2wsxcde3

eviltwin wrote: »

I support a woman's right to a termination of pregnancy at any stage.

So you think its ok to kill a baby at 8 or 9 months gestation right before it is about to be born? The baby can live outside the woman at that stage completely independently. It no longer needs the woman at the stage ...so why the need to kill it? Its going to come out one way or the other at that stage but you seem to be saying its ok to kill it right before it comes out.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I know, but i'm trying to improve.



Its not completely unrealistic. Scientists have been working on this proposal for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus . Its not beyond possibility that this could be engineered to work at 8 weeks or so of pregnancy in the future. Not that i like the idea though. It just seems, from a theoretical point of view, about as best a compromise idea as could ever be posited between a pro-life and pro-choice sides that are bitterly opposed.

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

There was no problem with your initial proposal. If such a device could be produced, it would be amazing.
The offensive bit was the part that followed where you likened women to human incubators.

You seem to have a bizarre notion that Pro-Choice people are raving mental murdering lunatics out for the blood of innocents.
You couldn’t be more wrong. And to suggest so is both very misguided and manipulative.