The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

OK, coercion might be a bit strong, but you did make an intervention.
Why not just say to her, look, go off and make your decision on whether you want the baby or not, then come back when you have your mind made up and we will support you either way.
By offering her the help you did before she made her choice, I would regard that as at least subtle coercion.
I know you will disagree, but that's the way I see your post.

Having a mature discussion with a young woman who has recently discovered her contraception failed and she is pregnant is stretching the definition of 'intervention'. I don't know about you, but in my world that is called being both supportive and an adult.

Generally I find when a person finds themselves in a bit of a crises situation -
which tends to cloud the mind - and they come to you for advice saying 'go off and make your decision' without also making it very clear what choices/options are available and regardless of their decision you will be there is not being supportive. It's piling more pressure on someone who is already under stress. You might do that to a person. I wouldn't.

You are talking like we were all there when she pee'd on a pregnancy test, whipped it out of her hand before she saw the results and said 'right young lady - these are your options! Choose NOW!'


She found out she was pregnant. She told my son. A few days later I was told.
Options were discussed. She had as much time as she needed to decide having heard her options. It was made abundantly clear she had choices and her decision was both final and would be respected. Any help she needed following on from her decision would be freely given. She took some days to consider her options. She made her decision.

Do stop extrapolating to make some point or other.

Ismisejack

Pro choice yee call yeerselfs?? The ultimate choice is the choice one has over whether they life or die and by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered. Abortion Denys a child it’s only life, abortion is murder. If an abortion doesn’t take place a child has a life whereas abortion takes that child’s life, it’s only life. Yee talk about the woman having the child but that isn’t a matter of life or death, unlike in the babies case

Edward M

The good argument is always to tell the other party to stop.
Fair enough, I've made my point.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I fully appreciate the sentiments in Banasidhes posts. They are exactly the same feelings I might have myselif in her situation.
But they are not the feelings being put across by most pro choice posters and posts, that's my point.
Mostly I have read, its no ones business, its between the woman and her doctor, its the woman's choice.
If I believed that, I would say to someone who asked me, its none of my business, make your decision and then I'll support that decision.
Offering a sweetener counts as subtle coercion IMO.

Because ultimately it is between the woman and her doctor and the final decision is the woman's.

Imagine someone you love has terminal cancer. Treatment might buy them some time but the quality of that time will be drastically reduced due to the side effects of the treatment. They want to stop treatment. Is that their decision or does everyone get to decide?
I've been in this situation also with an aunt with terminal lung cancer. She decided no more chemo because it was making her last few months a hell of sickness. Her family, myself included, wanted more time with her but we also knew that time would be physically hell for her. She discussed her decision with her children, her sisters, and her nieces and nephews. Not everyone was happy about it but it was, ultimately, a decision between my aunt and her doctor.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

Just a quick edit, to ask a question.
Why didn't you tell her, in true pro choice wording, its none of my business really?

I don't even know where to start with that...

'true pro-choice wording'.... dear lord....

Pro-choice is a philosophy of life, not a soundbite. Everything I said, everything I did was about showing her she had choicesand her eventual decision would be respected. That, dear Edward, it true pro-choice.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ismisejack wrote: »

Pro choice yee call yeerselfs?? The ultimate choice is the choice one has over whether they life or die and by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered. Abortion Denys a child it’s only life, abortion is murder. If an abortion doesn’t take place a child has a life whereas abortion takes that child’s life, it’s only life. Yee talk about the woman having the child but that isn’t a matter of life or death, unlike in the babies case

What a wall of utter tripe


Try using real words next time and maybe people might listen to what you have to say :rolleyes:

captbarnacles

It's not murder no matter how many times you repeat it.

pleas advice

But it is a life no matter how many times you deny it

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

But it is a life no matter how many times you deny it

no.
it is a potential life. A pregnancy may lead to a normal healthy baby or it may end itself naturally.
It is not possible to say that it will definately become a life.

pleas advice

It is alive, it is a life...

amdublin

Edward M wrote: »

The good argument is always to tell the other party to stop.
Fair enough, I've made my point.

Sorry I'm completely confused. Have I you mixed up with someone else or have you mentioned a few times that while you are personally pro-life you will voting for repeal to allow others the choice?

Also you think someone offering to help either way is coercion? But you think they actually should have said stop i.e. 100% coercion not to have an abortion

I'm very confused.

amdublin

Ismisejack wrote: »

Pro choice yee call yeerselfs?? The ultimate choice is the choice one has over whether they life or die and by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered. Abortion Denys a child it’s only life, abortion is murder. If an abortion doesn’t take place a child has a life whereas abortion takes that child’s life, it’s only life. Yee talk about the woman having the child but that isn’t a matter of life or death, unlike in the babies case

I cannot read this post with that weird yee word.

That's not a word right??

amdublin

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

If you believe this then that's fine. No one is forcing an abortion on you.

Loafing Oaf

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

I fully appreciate the sentiments in Banasidhes posts. They are exactly the same feelings I might have myselif in her situation.
But they are not the feelings being put across by most pro choice posters and posts, that's my point.
Mostly I have read, its no ones business, its between the woman and her doctor, its the woman's choice.
If I believed that, I would say to someone who asked me, its none of my business, make your decision and then I'll support that decision.
Offering a sweetener counts as subtle coercion IMO.

Most pro choice people want to support women regardless of the choice they make. It's their choice ultimately and Bann recognised that.

Timberrrrrrrr

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

So are weeds yet I bet you dont think twice about killing them.

david75

Major Marref deja vu reading the last few pages.

The other side are having a totally different debate about a totally different issue.

Billy86

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

These are alive.



If I remove these out of the ground, they will no longer be alive. Does that mean I have committed murder?

January

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

Well no, it's not alive. It cannot survive outside the womb until around 24 weeks gestation.

Ismisejack

amdublin wrote: »

I cannot read this post with that weird yee word.

That's not a word right??

Yet yee never argued my point as there’s no denying twas valod

Ismisejack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What a wall of utter tripe


Try using real words next time and maybe people might listen to what you have to say :rolleyes:

Yet yee didn’t argue with my point as there is no denying it’s valid

Timberrrrrrrr

Ismisejack wrote: »

Yet yee didn’t argue with my point as there is no denying it’s valid

There was no point


Just a wall if tripe with made up words thrown in for comedic effect?

amdublin

Ismisejack wrote: »

Yet yee never argued my point as there’s no denying twas valod

There's that weird made up thing again.


What are you about?

pleas advice

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yee#Pronoun

Bannasidhe

Ismisejack wrote: »

Yet yee never argued my point as there’s no denying twas valod

Perchance thou hast wandering into a time that art not thine ownst and become pateaddled? If tis japes thou hast in mind then begone thou wretch back to whence thou came else thou shalt myss the dunking of the wytch and the burnying of the heretic.

amdublin

pleas advice wrote: »

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yee#Pronoun

An archaic word it seems. Archaic eh?

pleas advice

it was used as a both informal second-person plural and formal honorific, to address a group of equals or superiors or a single superior. While its use is archaic in most of the English-speaking world, it is used in Newfoundland, Northern England, Cornwall, and Ireland to distinguish from the singular "you"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English

amdublin

pleas advice wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English

Was.


Weeeeee get it, it's an old fashioned word.

Timberrrrrrrr

amdublin wrote: »

An archaic word it seems. Archaic eh?

A bit like the pro-lifers stance imo

pleas advice

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A bit like the pro-lifers stance imo

I'm glad you pointed that out, would have flown right over my head otherwise...

amdublin

Here's a reply to IsMiseJack's original post btw:


Women's sole purpose in life is not to be here on earth to be incubators for babies when they don't want to be pregnant (which could be for any variety of reasons detailed over and over again in this thread).


If IsMiseJack wants be pregnant then work away but please stop inflicting their archaic old fashioned view on to others.


Abortion is a private matter for each individual to decide.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered.

It is a non sentient entity being aborted. Non sentient entities do not have the capacity of choice in the first place. You can not "deny" something that it does not have in the first place any more than you can pour water out of an empty cup.

Do you pour water out of empty cups often?

pleas advice wrote: »

But it is a life no matter how many times you deny it

I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle. But that is about all.

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle.

life cycle of a human, though. not a flower, or a house-fly,

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

life cycle of a human, though. not a flower, or a house-fly,

Again no one is denying that either. You genuinely appear to think you have a point to make. Or at least that is the benefit of the doubt I want to give as I try to suspect the best of people before suspecting the worst. But whatever that point is, you are not getting it across at all I am afraid.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a non sentient entity being aborted. Non sentient entities do not have the capacity of choice in the first place. You can not "deny" something that it does not have in the first place any more than you can pour water out of an empty cup.

Do you pour water out of empty cups often?



I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle. But that is about all.

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

I'd reply to that by saying, I do understand what your arguments are, but I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.
Even if abortion is to be considered, I would hope that there would be more concern shown than that, because if that is the argument for abortion on demand, I would feel all humanity has gone out of the debate.

Ismisejack

]Here's a reply to AmDublins post btw Women don’t magically get pregnant, and I don’t need explain the chemistry so everyone is aware, therefore a woman should think hard before taking any risks that may lead to pregnancy as killing the poor innocent baby to solve there own problems is in humane and cannot be tolerated. Nobody is forcing a woman to have a child, she holds the control over whether she has one or not, and must realise if they go through the child making procedures ( unprotected sex) and a pregnancy occurs that was her choice and she cannot go back on that at the expense of a precious life.

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

]Here's a reply to AmDublins post btw Women don’t magically get pregnant, and I don’t need explain the chemistry so everyone is aware, therefore a woman should think hard before taking any risks that may lead to pregnancy as killing the poor innocent baby to solve there own problems is in humane and cannot be tolerated. Nobody is forcing a woman to have a child, she holds the control over whether she has one or not, and must realise if they go through the child making procedures ( unprotected sex) and a pregnancy occurs that was her choice and she cannot go back on that at the expense of a precious life.

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Ismisejack

January wrote: »

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

Its anti choice bingo all over again.

So you're in favour of stopping women from travelling for abortions?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I do understand what your arguments are, but I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.

Confusing that in one breath you claim to understand what my arguments are but then in the next breath claim you do not understand the one thing that pretty much makes up the entirety of what my arguments are. Which is it?

Either way I am happy to explain my arguments/position on abortion again:

1) Morals and ethics, unless you are some believer in nonsense like gods, has only one source. And that is consciousness and sentience.

2) Morals and ethics are in the business of doing one thing.... mediating the actions and well being of conscious and sentient creatures.

3) I therefore suspect, and other arguments and thought experiments bear this out, that it is TO consciousness and sentience that we are generally assigning our moral and ethical concern.

4) Therefore any entity that is in NO WAY in possession of these faculties, is therefore not an entity worthy of moral or ethical concern.

5) The fetus at 0-16 weeks is an entity that lacks the faculty ENTIRELY. A common housefly has more capacity for sentience than such a fetus. Therefore I would have more (though still very little) moral and ethical concern for the well being of the common house fly than I have for a 16 week old fetus.

If there is any part of that that requires further explanation, give me the number from 1 to 5 and I will elaborate on it further.

Edward M wrote: »

because if that is the argument for abortion on demand, I would feel all humanity has gone out of the debate.

And I would simply say the opposite. The core of my argument is not to throw humanity out of the debate, but to refine our understanding of what the word "Humanity" actually means in this context, where it applies, and why it applies.

Rather than just fly the flag of the single word "Humanity" therefore.... what I move to do is distill out from behind that word the actual attributes, the actual values, and the actual goals that are hidden behind it.

WHAT precisely about "humanity" is it we value, should value, could value. And equally importantly WHY.

And what I have found is that everything on the list that that endeavor produces........ are PRECISELY the attributes that a 16 week old fetus lacks. Not just slightly lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks. There is no coherent basis being offered for affording moral and ethical concern to said fetus. Least of all on this thread.

So humanity is not gone out of my debate, rather it has been made front and center of it, and a very bright very revealing spot light turned on it to see what parts of it are shadow, and what parts are actual substance.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

So what? Just because people know the risk of a certain action, that does not mean we stand our high horse over them and wag our finger at them when it goes wrong.

In some sport for example people cover themselves in protective gear. Sometimes this does not help and they still get injured.

What happens in that moment? Does a doctor run over to them and instantly help them?

Or does some knight in rusty armor..... that he believes to be pure white in his own self satisfied head........... ride over on his equally pathetic matted high steed..... and wag a finger screaming "You knew the risks kid!".

Check your privilege at the door please, not everyone is sexually educated. Not everyone consents to sex. Not everyone even knows they HAD sex. Not everyone can simply practice meticulous abstinence. Not everyone lives in the ideal world you merely imagine exists it seems.

And in fact places that have practiced the nonsense abstinence approaches to sex and sexuality have resulted in MORE unwanted and MORE teen pregnancies.

Further not everyone who seeks an abortion does so because of an unplanned pregnancy either. Some people actually do plan to get pregnant but when it happens their circumstances suddenly change and parenthood etc is no longer a viable option. Perhaps they lose their job. Perhaps they lose their partner. Perhaps there is a change in their health or well being. This assumption that anyone seeking an abortion was either raped, or irresponsible with contraception, or contraception failed.... is not a safe assumption.

The number of reasons people seek abortion are likely as individual as they themselves are. That you assume narratives in order to protect an agenda you can not defend in itself.... reveals much.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.

How much concern do you or any pro-lifer express for fertilized eggs created in a lab during IVF treatment? They are alive, they are uniquely human just like a 10 week fetus, they have the same potential to grow into a human being...

And nobody in today's debate gives a rat's ass about them.

Now - imagine for a moment that I feel the same way about an 8 week fetus as you feel about an IVF fertilized egg.

Ismisejack

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

What about smokers? And drinkers? And drug takers?
Should we deny them medical treatment because they knew the risks?

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How much concern do you or any pro-lifer express for fertilized eggs created in a lab during IVF treatment? They are alive, they are uniquely human just like a 10 week fetus, they have the same potential to grow into a human being...

And nobody in today's debate gives a rat's ass about them.

Now - imagine for a moment that I feel the same way about an 8 week fetus as you feel about an IVF fertilized egg.

That's not my point, but anyway, I care more about them than to compare their existence to a fly.
I think comparing an unborn at any stage to having as little value as a fly is degrading to humanity.
Let's campaign on the basis that abortion should be as easy as swatting a fly, even if you do believe it, and see how the campaign goes.
Absolutely soulless language IMO, and that's not a religious soulless, that's a human feeling I mean when I say it.
So many great stories on here from women who had abortions, wrestled with their thoughts before they reached their decisions.
Comparisons of fetus to fly's is a mockery of human existence IMO.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I think comparing an unborn at any stage to having as little value as a fly is degrading to humanity.

And as I said in the post you skipped over above, it is actually the complete opposite. It is not degrading humanity, it is identifying "humanity" very specifically and elevating it to being all important.

The moment sentience and consciousness comes on line, the moment the fetus therefore has become an actual member of what I believe the set "humanity" actually means...... then I afford it all the love, respect, and moral and ethical concern I would afford to YOU or even to MYSELF or my own children.

Consciousness and Sentience (the core attributes of what it means to be Humanity really) are paramount to me and I am not degrading it at all, but being SPECIFIC about it. And when an entity lacks those things, it is not morally or ethically important to me. At all.

Nothing I am saying is soulless or a mockery of human existence. It is actually a celebration of human existence, while being ABSOLUTELY specific about what it is I am celebrating and why and when.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

That's not my point, but anyway, I care more about them than to compare their existence to a fly.

That 2009 case ruled that these living microscopic human beings have no rights whatsoever - literally as much legal protection as a fly.

And you are OK with that, with IVF, with research, with Morning After contraception.

So actually, you are just somehow upset at the language, not the fact that these micro-babies have the same rights as a fly.

captbarnacles

Ismisejack wrote: »

January wrote: »

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

And here we are again - in a faster time than normal. 'if you can't keep your legs close then tough'.

JDD

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

Are you honestly suggesting I shouldn't have sex with my husband from now until I go through the menopause? Are you honestly suggesting that? I'd love you to stand in front of my husband and say that, and say y'know, that its for the greater good.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That 2009 case ruled that these living microscopic human beings have no rights whatsoever - literally as much legal protection as a fly.

And you are OK with that, with IVF, with research, with Morning After contraception.

So actually, you are just somehow upset at the language, not the fact that these micro-babies have the same rights as a fly.

The language isn't as important as the thought process involved. Same as the ivf case being given no rights. Legal support of anything doesent always have my approval.
The fact that a human who is pregnant or anyone supporting abortion on demand can give as little thought to aborting a pregnancy as they would to swatting a fly is what I find hard to accept.

.......

This post has been deleted.