The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Oldtree

Andrew Beef wrote: »

So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?

Because every Irish woman, her health and choices is important.

You are confusing the micro with the macro with the numbers.

Oldtree wrote: »

In 2016 there were 2,407,437 women in Ireland. In 2016, 3,265 women and girls gave Irish addresses at UK abortion services.
(This number is an underestimation for various reasons and does not include abortion pill packages.)

This represents 0.14% of women in the country, hardly a socialtial fabric changing number in either mindset, or changing what is actuality happening.

Let me rephrase. 0.14% is not going to bring about the end of society as we know it (as you suggested), but 3,265 women is a significant number of individual women to warrant a change in our laws and medical practices, so they may be properly cared for by us. I remind you that they are Irish women, our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our wives.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.

You also believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape. Should we allow for that in Ireland?
You haven't quite explained why the unborn in a rape case doesn't have the same right to life as the unborn in another pregnancy?

sondagefaux

Edward M wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are running around the pitch with the goal posts here though in a concerted and contrived and willful campaign of topic hoping.

The post before this one you were trying, and failing, to correlate teen pregnancies with sex education..... suggesting a rise in one is linked to a rise in the other, and vice versa. You then dodge from that to STI, and then dodge from that to something entirely off topic about comments about Islam and then dodge once again to the topic of media pressures on children to start having sex. You are taking the "slippery fish" approach to discussion here, leaping out of each topic into the next in an attempt not to be pinned down to the mat on any one.

When that post on education position was roundly rebutted you shifted to another narrative about a rise in STI. A completely different position to a rise in pregnancies. And NEITHER of your links correlates this with sex education at all. So yes it IS "just one study" on the subject you addressed, a subject you have run away from in favor of another now.

The "just one study" you presented to support your narrative about sex education however is one that even the authors themselves say should be interpreted very cautiously. Which you might have noticed if you had more of a tendency to read the original studies, rather than news paper spin articles ABOUT studies.

It is more comical than I have words to describe that you moan about people who "only follow the Medias propaganda" yet every link you provide is TO MEDIA ARTICLES and never to the actual studies themselves. And not just any media articles, but highly biases ones from sources like "Breitbart". You might also notice that one of the authors you cite is remarkably biased on the subject, having spent a decade or more writing against strategies educating teens on sex. It gets even funnier when you moan things are not "news worthy" while citing NEWS articles about them. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one.

In other words, the one entirely and wholly reliant on media propaganda here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And, of course, you. Moaning about the media while pretty much exclusively ONLY using media links is remarkably comical even by your usual standards of misdirection. Try reading, understanding and citing the actual research in future, and leave the media out of it entirely.

The first thing you need to notice after this is that correlation does not imply causation. The effects of sexual education do not stop the moment you cut funding to sex education. The cuts come at precisely the time when we expect to see the beneficial effects of the sex education the government HAD been funding. So it is a leap of pure narrative and spin to try and correlate the variance in pregnancies NOW with the cut in funding NOW. The former is more likely to be causally linked to what happened BEFORE the latter.

Studies worldwide CONSISTENTLY show the benefits of earlier, more comprehensive, and more extensive sexual education. One opinion piece that fails entirely to understand the link before correlation and causation is not going to make all that go away for you. And as one of your own links points out, the issue is less likely to be anything to do with contraception and sex education and more likely to do with mass changes in sexual culture such as afforded to us by dating apps and the like.

If you want to support the narrative that an increase in funding to sexual education results in an increase in pregnancies and STIs then you have a LOT more work to do to attain that, as you have presented nothing at all supporting such a concept thus far.



If the two were event remotely mutually exclusive you might have the semblance of a point here. But since they are not, you do not.

I am perfectly capable of, and in fact very much active in, campaigning to have abortion by choice in my home country while also campaigning for a multiple approach set of initiatives in reducing the number of people who ever seek one.

The concept that we should focus on one or the other, especially to the exclusion of one or the other, is a harmful narrative supported by nothing at all that you have presented to date.



Or to put less of a contrived spin on your attempts at historical revisionism..... people are generally happy to use terms freely until such a time as being specific is required.

It was "Unborn child" before "abortion on demand" because the use of the term "unborn child" did not bring implications that were relevant at the time. Now that abortion IS a question in our world we have to be more specific, and not allow unwarranted implications to be smuggled in through mere mis-use of language.

What is happening therefore is NOT the "dehumanization of the baby" as you simply pretend in your agenda driven narrative. Rather we are now in a position to examine whether "humanization of the fetus" was ever warranted in the first place.

Clue: It wasn't.

Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.

The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

Andrew Beef

Orion wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.

So you support repealing the 8th Amendment then because it prevents abortion in those cases.

Yes, I do.

I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.

sondagefaux

Peregrinus wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

And yet, pre-quickening abortions were carried out and only punished or condemned by having to say a few prayers?
Hmmm, somehow I don't think that most people would regard that as much of a punishment.

I don't know whether the "punishment" was "a few prayers" or not.  I made no claims about punishment.  If you want to make claims about punishment, go right ahead.  I may respond if what you say is interesting. It won't be interesting, though, if your claim is that the "punishment" was "only a few prayers", but it turns out that you have no evidence for this.

sondagefaux wrote: »

As to your claim that the Catholic Church is on the moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of infants . . .

I made no such claim; nor would I.  If you're having to make up claims, ascribe them to me, and then post multi-paragraph screeds to refute the claims you have made up, I'll take it that as an attempt to distract attention from the fact that you're unable to defend your own claims about an entirely different matter in an entirely different era.

This is what you said:

This, along with the condemnation of the practice of exposing unwanted infants, is one of the earliest distinctive Christian ethical positions that we know of.  

You drew a distinction between Christian thinking about 'unwanted infants' and non-Christian, with the clear implication that the Christian 'ethical position' was superior.
By the way, do you generally dismiss extracts from news reports about the abuse and criminal mistreatment of unmarried mothers and their infant children as 'multi-paragraph screeds'?

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I do.

I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.

What about women health? You do know, I'm sure, the effects the 8th amendment has on it?
I myself personally had to go through a completely unnecessary surgery because Of The 8th amendment. That's a disgusting way to treat women.
But, seeing as how you do support abortion in certain circumstances, I guess you will be voting to repeal.

pleas advice

sondagefaux wrote: »

The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

Your logical fallacy is
Composition/division

blanch152

Andrew Beef wrote: »

My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward.

Isn't that what they did with the Kerry Babies Tribunal? Put a woman up before a board and questioned her in depth about her sexual activity?

I don't think it is possible to imagine a more traumatic response to a request for abortion following a rape than the one you have put forward.

sondagefaux

pleas advice wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

Your logical fallacy is
Composition/division

The logical fallacy is claiming that something with the potential to become human is already human. 
For thousands of years, human beings drew a distinction between the post-'quickening' stages of pregnancy and the earlier stages of pregnancy, permitting abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, prior to 'quickening'. 
Only in the past 150 years or so has the law in Ireland and other common law jurisdictions tried to ascribe humanity to the foetus in its earliest stages.

Martina1991

Andrew Beef wrote:

I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla†circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised.

Your views and criteria for allowing abortion are contradictory.
"The woman's right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn right to life In such circumstances ". But should be criminalised and jailed if the condom broke?
You have reached your conclusions based on your own morals. Not based on the needs of Irish women.

You lack compassion or understanding for any women that are and have been affected by the 8th.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Do you think women should be criminalised for having an abortion abroad?

The 13th amendment preventing this passed in 1992 by 62.4% to 37.6%, or 1035,308 votes to 624,059.

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.

The stint in my Granddad's heart is in a human body and is a human creation, by your logic it's also human.

Edward M

sondagefaux wrote: »

The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.

My appendix is human.

I suppose what you mean is that a fertilized egg, not even a fetus yet, is a human being with rights.

The law disagrees though, and does not offer any rights whatsoever to a fertilized egg.

pleas advice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

The stint in my Granddad's heart is in a human body and is a human creation, by your logic it's also human.

Appeal to ridicule, it's like fallacy bingo in here...

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

And you have every right to believe that. I don't agree with you and I can show you why that belief is wrong, but ultimately it is your right to believe what you want and I will always defend it.

However, your rights end where another's begin. By refusing to change the law because of your (and others) beliefs, we are stopping women from having the right to bodily autonomy. Your right to believe a 12 week old fetus is a human being falls below the woman's right to bodily autonomy as your right is directly impacting others rights, therefore is no longer important.

Just to clarify my point. You have a right to freedom. You then kill someone. As you infringed on someone else's rights, your right to freedom is diminished and you go to jail.

In short, you can belief a fetus is human but you don't get to stop women from having access to abortion because you believe something to be true that isn't.

david75

Well the timing is very strange but this is happening

Seven judges to hear appeal over rights of unborn
Judgment may affect the wording of the referendum on the Eighth Amendment

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/seven-judges-to-hear-appeal-over-rights-of-unborn-1.3399385

mrkiscool2

pleas advice wrote: »

Appeal to ridicule, it's like fallacy bingo in here...

Hahahahahaha. "I have no points, so I am just going to play the fallacy card, even when someone uses the same logic as a poster I agree with. Hurr durr".

And yes, there may be an ad hominem in there but it's to point out how stupid you constantly saying "fallacy" and literally changing definitions for others to suit yourself. (Myself and another poster used the same logic as Edward M in a post and we both got different fallacies. Odd that!)

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

And you have every right to believe that. I don't agree with you and I can show you why that belief is wrong, but ultimately it is your right to believe what you want and I will always defend it.

However, your rights end where another's begin. By refusing to change the law because of your (and others) beliefs, we are stopping women from having the right to bodily autonomy. Your right to believe a 12 week old fetus is a human being falls below the woman's right to bodily autonomy as your right is directly impacting others rights, therefore is no longer important.

Just to clarify my point. You have a right to freedom. You then kill someone. As you infringed on someone else's rights, your right to freedom is diminished and you go to jail.

In short, you can belief a fetus is human but you don't get to stop women from having access to abortion because you believe something to be true that isn't.

I'm voting for repeal!
I don't believe an unborn has an equal right to life as the mother.
Despite that I don't believe in unlimited abortion either, but the eighth dissent protect either mother or unborn really, abortion is available to those who really seek it anyway, either by imported pills or travelling abroad.
I'm just on the side of those that medically really need abortion and can't get it, as well as those made pregnant through force or fear of abuse.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.

In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really.
But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs.
My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really.
But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs.
My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.

I am just making the point that your belief about the unborn is founded about as much in scientific reasoning as the flat-earthers.

You may view my response as ignorant or condescending, but that doesn't make it any less true.

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.

Perhaps you should listen to your father more?!

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

I am just making the point that your belief about the unborn is founded about as much in scientific reasoning as the flat-earthers.

You may view my response as ignorant or condescending, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Yes it does. Be honest, do you really think the earth is flat? I think its round, which of us is the flat earther?

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

Perhaps you should listen to your father more?!

Ah indeed, I got many a thick ear for not!

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Yes it does. Be honest, do you really think the earth is flat? I think its round, which of us is the flat earther?

Both as round means it is two dimensional.

I think it’s a sphere...

2wsxcde3

sondagefaux wrote: »

Magdalene Laundries

sondagefaux wrote: »

the Franco regime

blanch152 wrote: »

flat-earthers

...and i'm accused of diverting the topic :rolleyes:

frag420

frag420 wrote: »

Both as round means it is two dimensional.

I think it’s a sphere...

It's a geoid!
😉

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

...and i'm accused of diverting the topic :rolleyes:

Magdalene Laundries are relevant to abortion though. Due to how Catholic-centric our original constitution was, things like abortion were a no-no constitutionally but the Magdalene Laundries were allowed to thrive. Also, your "Let's make sex ed in a way that doesn't encourage teenagers to have sex!" is pretty much the Catholic mantra.

And you do go off topic, or change the goalposts, a lot.

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

Both as round means it is two dimensional.

I think it’s a sphere...

Well I'm a round earther, you're a sphere earther, blanch is a flat earther.

But that is at least direct comparison.
If someone says to me that they don't believe a child is human from conception because of my post, then that's a direct comparison against my belief. If that's a sincere belief then that's fine and I have respect for that belief.
But if they stoop to being stupid and making condescending remarks towards my sincere beliefs then I give no respect to their stance, as that implies ridicule of those that don't have have their beliefs.

sondagefaux

Edward M wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

sondagefaux

Edward M wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.

In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really.
But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs.
My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.

You'd do well to heed his advice.

Edward M

sondagefaux wrote: »

Ah you can take it out now.

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

Well the timing is very strange but this is happening

That's been on the cards for a while. Last year the state asked for the appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court, and earlier this year they asked for an early hearing to make sure it doesn't overlap with any referendum campaign.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's been on the cards for a while. Last year the state asked for the appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court, and earlier this year they asked for an early hearing to make sure it doesn't overlap with any referendum campaign.

That makes sense I guess.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

I am not convinced anyone is trying to change your mind on it, especially as you appear to be voting the "right" way even if for some of the "wrong" reasons. Certainly not me anyway, as I think it is "Human" too from conception. At least in terms of biological Taxonomy. It is fully, 100%, absolutely human.

Where I think the difference in opinion comes from is that there are other uses of the word "Human". And when we are speaking of things like "rights" and whether or not we should have any moral or ethical concern for a fetus it is THOSE uses of the word "Human" that are relevant. Not the one of mere biological taxonomy.

When we are talking about, for example, "human" in terms of person hood, individuality, humanity, there is nothing going on in a fetus, much less so at conception, that warrants the term. To me it is a little like looking at a wonderful piece of sculpture and calling it (accurately) a "rock" because that is what it is. Then going to any other random "rock" and suddenly calling it "art".

Just because the word "rock" (human) applies to both, we should be cautious about allowing that to impute or even SUGGEST anything further about one that is true about the other. And I think that is exactly what many do with the term "human" in this context.

I wonder if I traveled back in time far enough, and changed history so we had two different words for this rather than the one word "human"..... and then I traveled back in time to present day............ how altered would this debate, and this thread, be.

Who knows, but all I can say is that I see nothing going on at the level of a 16 week old fetus that in ANY way makes me feel compelled to afford it any moral or ethical concern/consideration at all. And the accuracy (biologically at least) of the term "human" is certainly not going to get me there personally.

Edward M

Tbh with you noz, I'm not very arty myself.
I see your point to an extent.
When you see an artist starting a portrait with a blank canvas and his/collage of colours and watch it form into a beautiful picture there is a sense of watching something beautiful being created, in a lot of cases anyway.
Art attack on TV or yer man, can't think of his name, on rte.
But its still only paint and canvas, on their own probably nothing worth remarking on, but the end product, that's the art.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not arty either. I struggle to draw stick men.

And to me the fetus is the canvas. And if someone burned a canvas and poured paint down the drain it would be at best mildly annoying and wasteful, but nothing of any great import.

When one murders a PERSON or destroys a work of art however, that is the moment of horror.

And so that transition point between art materials and actual art..... a fetus and an actual person..... does not just become important it becomes EVERYTHING. And that we have one word "Human" to describe the entity before and after that transition is, I fear, a detriment to us all. And most importantly a detriment to the discourse on the topic.

2wsxcde3

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When one murders a PERSON or destroys a work of art however, that is the moment of horror.

Some of Da Vincis sketches in his copybooks would be considered unfinished, but they are still priceless. I think if you destroyed one of his sketches and then claimed "Well, it was unfinished so it wasn't really worth anything" ...i dont think too many people would have sympathy for you.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some of Da Vincis sketches in his copybooks would be considered unfinished, but they are still priceless. I think if you destroyed one of his sketches and then claimed "Well, it was unfinished so it wasn't really worth anything" ...i dont think too many people would have sympathy for you.

The point Noz was making was that if you destroyed one of his blank easels and poured his paints down a drain, it would be just an annoyance for him but would have no adverse affect on anyone else. Destroying something like the Mona Lisa, however, would be revolting (hence movies and books that want to put across the extent of the dystopian world it's set in routinely do destroy it).

So, unless you actually understand the point a user is trying to make, I suggest you refrain from putting your foot in your mouth.

EDIT: Also, seeing as your point was on unfinished sketches, those sketches are still of great value. They may be unfinished, but they are still a look into his mind and thought process and allows us to better understand his genius. If he had a blank easel, no-one would really care if it was lost or destroyed.

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

The point Noz was making was that if you destroyed one of his blank easels and poured his paints down a drain, it would be just an annoyance for him but would have no adverse affect on anyone else. Destroying something like the Mona Lisa, however, would be revolting (hence movies and books that want to put across the extent of the dystopian world it's set in routinely do destroy it).

So, unless you actually understand the point a user is trying to make, I suggest you refrain from putting your foot in your mouth.

EDIT: Also, seeing as your point was on unfinished sketches, those sketches are still of great value. They may be unfinished, but they are still a look into his mind and thought process and allows us to better understand his genius. If he had a blank easel, no-one would really care if it was lost or destroyed.

What is a ‘blank’ human? By 11 weeks a developing child is already either male or female, the opposite sex features have been in retreat for several weeks by that point. So you could say at a week 11 abortion that you are destroying either a boy or a girl.

david75

Went to see an exhibition of da Vinci’s sketches last year in the national gallery.

They were all very beautiful. He was an immense talent.

Charmeleon

david75 wrote: »

Went to see an exhibition of da Vinci’s sketches last year in the national gallery.

They were all very beautiful. He was an immense talent.

I think we should burn the ones in storage, they aren’t sentient and are therefore worthless.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

What is a ‘blank’ human? By 11 weeks a developing child is already either male or female, the opposite sex features have been in retreat for several weeks by that point. So you could say at a week 11 abortion that you are destroying either a boy or a girl.

Why are hampering your point by saying week 11? The haploid cell of the father already contains either the X or Y chromosome so, from minute 1, whatever forms is either going to be male or female.

You see the problem here? The anti-choice/pro-birth side keeps picking and choosing certain points, making an argument for emotion rather than anything (a fallacy, seeing as how Pleas Advice loves them).

A blank human would be one which is not alive. Which an 11 week old fetus isn't. A fetus at 12 weeks could still never make it to life. It might be a miscarriage, FFA, stillbirth etc. It's not a life. It is still developing and is therefore still a blank canvas or, to be nicer, a canvas that has been whitewashed.

It also brings me to another argument the anti-choice/pro-birth side makes. "That fetus could have the cure for cancer/be the next Da Vinci/something else great!". What's equally as likely is that it could be the next serial killer/mob boss/sexual assaulter ala Weinstein and the USA gynmastic doctor. Your making arguments to emotion, not to reason, which says it all really.

blanch152

Charmeleon wrote: »

What is a ‘blank’ human? By 11 weeks a developing child is already either male or female, the opposite sex features have been in retreat for several weeks by that point. So you could say at a week 11 abortion that you are destroying either a boy or a girl.

What is a blank canvas? By the time you have put it up on an easel, it could be one of three types:

https://www.claessenscanvas.com/en/products/types-of-canvas

It still isn't a work of art.

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Why are hampering your point by saying week 11? The haploid cell of the father already contains either the X or Y chromosome so, from minute 1, whatever forms is either going to be male or female.

You see the problem here? The anti-choice/pro-birth side keeps picking and choosing certain points, making an argument for emotion rather than anything (a fallacy, seeing as how Pleas Advice loves them).

A blank human would be one which is not alive. Which an 11 week old fetus isn't. A fetus at 12 weeks could still never make it to life. It might be a miscarriage, FFA, stillbirth etc. It's not a life. It is still developing and is therefore still a blank canvas or, to be nicer, a canvas that has been whitewashed.

It also brings me to another argument the anti-choice/pro-birth side makes. "That fetus could have the cure for cancer/be the next Da Vinci/something else great!". What's equally as likely is that it could be the next serial killer/mob boss/sexual assaulter ala Weinstein and the USA gynmastic doctor. Your making arguments to emotion, not to reason, which says it all really.

Because the sexual characteristics of the phenotype don’t begin to diverge until a few weeks in.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah good to know you are not ignoring ALL my posts, just the ones I actually write to you personally.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some of Da Vincis sketches in his copybooks would be considered unfinished, but they are still priceless.

Yes that fits with exactly what I said. Though the way you present it makes me suspect you think you are rebutting me rather than what you are actually doing which is essentially agreeing with me.

However to repeat what I said in the part of my post you edited out........

"And so that transition point between art materials and actual art..... a fetus and an actual person..... does not just become important it becomes EVERYTHING."

.......... I would say a lot of unfinished sketches from such an artist have indeed passed that transition point. A piece of paper he happened to draw an "X" on, probably not so much.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because the sexual characteristics of the phenotype don’t begin to diverge until a few weeks in.

Ah, so time does matter then? It's not really a human being, in the non taxonomy sense of the word, until time has passed? Thank you for conceding!

pilly

Edward M wrote: »

Well I'm a round earther, you're a sphere earther, blanch is a flat earther.

But that is at least direct comparison.
If someone says to me that they don't believe a child is human from conception because of my post, then that's a direct comparison against my belief. If that's a sincere belief then that's fine and I have respect for that belief.
But if they stoop to being stupid and making condescending remarks towards my sincere beliefs then I give no respect to their stance, as that implies ridicule of those that don't have have their beliefs.

Hear hear Edward, I wish both sides would have a little bit more respect for other peoples beliefs.

We can't continually go around screaming at people to respect our view without respecting theirs.

up for anything

I'm wondering why there aren't warehouse facilities dotted around the countryside containing non-viable humans on life support. Life is life according to pro-lifers. Therefore just because that life isn't sentient or capable of staying alive without help surely no one has the right to just switch off the machinery keeping the body functioning? The machinery should be obliged to run for as long as it takes for the body to die or for something to bring the person back to normal life. If it's legal to turn off life support machinery then it should be equally legal to obtain an abortion in this country. There's not much difference to my mind.