The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Ajsoprano

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Because it would kill me, not that the pro-life would care.

Kill you in a death situation which I agree with or a feelings situation which I don’t.

I’m not sure anybody apart from the staunch types would want anybody risking life. There’s no way that part of the referendum wouldn’t pass.

zedhead

grahambo wrote: »

I feel abortion should an option in some cases.
However my concern is that it will be become a form of mainstream contraception. (I'm trying to be sensitive with my words here)

If I felt people were responsible in this country it would be a big "repeal" from me.
However people are not responsible in this country, not at all in fact.

Irish people are renowned for the "It's always someone else's fault" attitude or "just my luck" or "not my problem", not to mention how self entitled a lot of people are today. Such to the extent that they feel they should have X,Y or Z not because they've earned it, but because the feel they are entitled to/deserve it, because someone that has earned it has gotten it. (Obviously you dont earn the right to have an abortion, I' not using this as a metaphor. rather trying to gauge the way people think in this country)

You only have to look at all the crap that happen in the lead up to and during the crash to understand we Irish are not responsible.

You think people are so irresponsible they should not be trusted with the decision to have abortion available to them...but all of these horribly irresponsible people are grand to raise children?

Beta Ray Bill

swampgas wrote: »

Look, Irish women have abortions right now - they just travel to the UK. In fact in a referendum years ago the Irish people put it in the constitution that they have the right to travel. The constitution reflects the weird contradictory attitude I find here: abortion is okay if you travel, but a terrible crime if you have one at home. It's the same woman, the same pregnancy, the same foetus/baby, just in a different place for a few days. How crazy is that?

Trying to link abortion to the financial crisis is just ... I don't know where to begin, to be honest.

Your points are valid.
We cannot control what happens in another country.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I was trying to gauge how responsible Irish people are in general. Not compare pregnancy/abortion to the financial crisis.

People in this country take the piss all the time.
You may not believe it's a life, but a great many do (as was evident on the 11th of March).
And at a very high level, each side need to respect what the other side thinks.

I feel if I talk positively about abortion to pro-lifers they hate me and are disgusted by me.
I feel if I talk positively about pro-life to pro-choicers they feel I'm a misogynistic pig.

This whole debate has gotten personal (again a very Irish thing). And no one is listening.
Everyone just wants to be right regardless of what the consequences of being right are. (if that makes sense)

zedhead wrote: »

You think people are so irresponsible they should not be trusted with the decision to have abortion available to them...but all of these horribly irresponsible people are grand to raise children?

Valid point.
Tallaght 2 weeks ago verifies your point.

pilly

JDD wrote:

Please actually answer the questions. Because you are voting on something that will directly affect me.

Those questions won't be answered.

Ave Sodalis

grahambo wrote: »

I feel if I talk positively about abortion to pro-lifers they hate me and are disgusted by me.
I feel if I talk positively about pro-life to pro-choicers they feel I'm a misogynistic pig.

Just on this, I am pro-choice but I do fully understand that this is a diverse issue. I don't think it's misogyny (well mostly). I just can't stand ridiculous arguments which some pro-life people put forward, especially ones that are misleading.

At the end of the day, abortion is going to happen anyway. People will travel, they'll order pills online, they'll use a coat hanger if they have to. I was unfortunately present in Limerick one night about 4 or 5 years ago when a girl nearly drunk herself into a coma to try and give herself an abortion. Abortion being illegal doesn't stop abortions. It just stops safe ones.

nozzferrahhtoo

Percy Judd wrote: »

Can any pro-abortion people (I'm using that term since I've been labelled the provocative 'anti-choice') so why not fight fire with fire

Well because one is accurate and the other is not, that is why. In the context of abortion you ARE anti choice. However I am not "pro abortion". As I said in the post you seemingly decided to ignore..... people on BOTH sides of this issue want little or no abortions to be happening ideally. That is the opposite of pro abortion.

So no you are not fighting fire with fire. You are flailing at an accurate term with an inaccurate one. A difference worth learning.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

Except again in the post you seemingly have decided to duck, dodge, and ignore I told you how the OPPOSITE is in fact true and I not only know what it superficially looks like, but I know all the intricate details of the entire gestation process.

I wonder if part of the reason you have decided to ignore and dodge my post is that I do not fit the straw man mould of a pro-choice voter that you have invented in your own imagination.

Or is it that you can not answer the questions I asked about that fetus, and what aspect of it you feel should be triggering our moral and ethical concerns about it's supposed right to life?

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

Except no contraception, even multiple ones, "ensure" any such thing. Each contraception, especially used in combination, cause massive decreases in the % probability of becoming pregnant. But even combining the pill with condoms for example does NOT push that % to zero.

Percy Judd wrote: »

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

That is a crass distortion of the reality of the pro choice narrative I am afraid. The reality is that pro-choice people, myself included, campaign for contraception use, cheaper and better access to it, and more education about it. But again you would know that if you had not decided to simply ignore my last post.

No abortion is not "the answer" to "effort". Abortion is a CHOICE people can make when, despite the effort, women find themselves pregnant against their will. And choice is all it is or is being sold as by anyone except YOUR ilk with phrases like "pro abortion" that pretend otherwise.

Percy Judd wrote: »

I know the contraception pill is 99% effective when used correctly. I know condoms are 98% effective when used correctly.
Combined gives close to 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

And how many people do you think are having sex? How many times do you think they do it? "Close to 100%" means not 100%. What is it then? 99%?

1% of a large number is still a large number. Even a 99% effective contraception regime will STILL result in many unplanned and often unwanted pregnancies.

Do the math.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Pro-life posters are ganged up on, shouted down and told to leave because they disagree with the heavily pro-abortion contingent on this website.

And yet I did NONE of that myself and what did you do? You simply dodged and ignored my post. Which tells me you simply see what you want to see, and pick up on only the posts and posters you imagine fit the profile you have invented. Ignore those who do not fit it, because they will not fill out your agenda and profiling.

Percy Judd wrote: »

To me that's a tiny human being and most certainly a person.

"To me" being the important words in that sentence, because what you certainly have not done is offered a single piece of argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to establish a 12 week gestated fetus as a "person". So "To me it is a person" means nothing more to me than "To me Elvis is still alive". Fantasy is as fantasy does.

Now if you want to actually present any of the above as part of debate rather than preaching I am more than all ears.

Percy Judd wrote: »

At what point do we 'care' about humans then?
What stage of mental or cognitive development? What stage of physical development?

Glad you asked. There is no reason in science or philosophy on offer to "care" (or as I put it, to have moral and ethical concern for) an entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

The fetus when it is generally aborted (the near totality of choice based abortions happen before week 16 almost consistently in EVERY country that has choice based abortion) not just slightly, but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness and sentience. In fact it also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it too.

What point do we, or at least should we, start to care about it? At the point when ANY significant level of doubt comes into play that that faculty may have formed.

Spoiler alert: There is not a shred of concern at 0-16 weeks.

Percy Judd wrote: »

I have posted what stage of development a 12-week fetus is at regarding heartbeat, responding to stimulus, hands, feet, arms, legs, brain synapses, etc. And yet you can't be straight and say you don't consider that a human life.

It is alive. It is human. In taxonomy. It is not a Human Person. And it has no attributes upon which to afford it moral and ethical concern. And this is demonstrable because all the attributes you just listed ALSO exist in other "Life" we kill all the time.

The last burger you or someone you know ate? Yep it had a heartbeat, response to stimulus, limbs, brain synapses and the whole lot. And yet to happily kill it by the millions. That last anti bacterial you took? Yes even a bacteria can respond to stimulus.

So when you write "I think I have caught you lot out on this point" the reality is you have caught YOURSELF out. Because you have just listed a string of attributes that DEMONSTRABLY do not mediate a "right to life" in our general ethics and morality.

So having shot yourself in the foot, limp over to the armchair and sit down and listen to the simple next step in that mental process. Ask yourself if those attributes DO NOT mediate our moral and ethical concerns, what attributes actually do.

And you will then, like me, likely find that the answer you come up with for that question is PRECISELY the attributes the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just partially lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks.

And having had that revelation you will then suddenly, and completely, understand one clear and concise pro choice position. Yay you!

But if you need further introspection on the matter then have a little thought experiment. Imagine our technology..... and there are people who believe we are not too many generations from this...... reaches the point that we can map your consciousness into a computer and keep you alive after your body is dead. Imagine then I do this and install your consciousness into the equivalent of a toaster. No limbs. No heart beat. No flesh and blood. Just silicon and software.

Should I be allowed torture you, kill you, or have my way with you because you have NONE of the attributes you just listed a 12 week old fetus having. OR would your awareness sitting inside this toaster like box have something to which I should show moral and ethical concern. If so..... why do you think that is. What does that toaster have that should concern me? And do you notice your answer to that question is PERCISELY what the fetus does not have, never has had, and is a way off having.

Percy Judd wrote: »

So should we turn comatose patients life support off? There are lots of human lives which cannot survive without support. How is that a justification for killing them?

Percy Judd wrote: »

So if that's what defines a 'separate human being' to you, should we legalize killing of unconscious people? Comatose patients?

We turn life support off all the time. So I am not sure what your point here is. In fact I am not even convinced at this moment that YOU know what your point here is.

But the distinction you are missing here is that a coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness and sentience. It might not be operating entirely, but it still has it. This is distinct from the fetus which A) Does not have it and Never has had it.

This is no small distinction. You would do well to mark it and note it. And while you are at it note the difference between HAVING that faculty and current USE OF that faulty. Unconscious people and coma patients HAVE the faculty. THAT is what makes them not just biologically human, but a human person.

Percy Judd wrote: »

If it's so simple, why don't you logically defeat my arguments instead of the lazy 'oh someone else has already defeated them, somewhere, I can't be bothered'.? Because you can't.

Glad I arrived to do it for you. If you feel you still have any arguments left I did not address in this post, or the one you simply ignored before this one, then please ask questions. I am here all year. But right now, despite you congratulating yourself at your own brilliance..... it genuinely appears you got nuttin.

RobertKK

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-choice-canvasser-shocked-by-reaction-on-doorstep-1.3422778

The reaction to pro-choice campaigners in one of the wealthiest areas of one of the most liberal constituencies in the state left canvasser Mary Cody, “shocked and disappointed”.

More wealthy areas were more for the 8th amendment and in less wealthy areas they were more for repeal.

pilly

amdublin wrote:

Have you ever had an extremely bad period? There's nothing easy about it.

I think we can safely assume Percy has never had a period.

pilly

amdublin wrote:

Have you ever had an extremely bad period? There's nothing easy about it.

I think we can safely assume Percy has never had a period.

Ajsoprano

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-choice-canvasser-shocked-by-reaction-on-doorstep-1.3422778



More wealthy areas were more for the 8th amendment and in less wealthy areas they were more for repeal.

Nobody answers their doors to randomers anymore it means nothing.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pilly

Ajsoprano wrote:

I’m rambling now.....

Yeah your whole post was a ramble tbh

Ajsoprano

pilly wrote: »

Yeah your whole post was a ramble tbh

No need to be mean

professore

JDD wrote: »

Bull. We've had divorce here for 20 years and our statistics aren't even close to the UK's.


You already know an Irish woman who's had an abortion. They just haven't told you about it.

I know three.

On the divorce one, couples have to live separately for 5 years. This is far more onerous than in the UK. At least half the people I know are either separated or divorced. So I'd say the reality isn't much different than the UK. It's pretty safe to assume the abortion rates will be similar too.

pilly

grahambo wrote:

Genuinely I am leaning towards the Pro-choice side but only slightly.

Here we go, another one.

Ajsoprano

pilly wrote: »

Here we go, another one.

Another one what?
Voter?

pilly

Ajsoprano wrote:

Another one what? Voter?

No another one pretending to be pro choice but doing nothing but throw in anti choice arguments.

Seems to be a regular tactic now. Don't know why anyone would think it will work but there go. Desperate times I suppose call for desperate measures.

splinter65

It’s the 12 weeks that’s going to save the 8th.

January

BattleHardened wrote: »

Where are ye canvassing? What parts of dublin are most likely to be receptive to the pro-repeal side rather than anti-repeal?


.

We will be out in Dublin West. I've no idea how to answer your second question but I can tell you that from looking at the other pro choice groups in the country that we are getting some very positive reactions on the doors.

Ajsoprano

pilly wrote: »

No another one pretending to be pro choice but doing nothing but throw in anti choice arguments.

Seems to be a regular tactic now. Don't know why anyone would think it will work but there go. Desperate times I suppose call for desperate measures.

Yeah it’s all a conspiracy. Everybody that doesn’t have your opinion lives in a convent. It’s so obvious.

splinter65

pilly wrote: »

Here we go, another one.

Pilly you’d better not go out canvassing for pro repeal, unless you’re secretly pro life and you want the referendum to be defeated.

JDD

Percy, you still haven’t answered questions one and two. I’m not letting you avoid them.

pilly

JDD wrote:

Percy, you still haven’t answered questions one and two. I’m not letting you avoid them.

And neither has Splinter

pilly

splinter65 wrote:

Pilly you’d better not go out canvassing for pro repeal, unless you’re secretly pro life and you want the referendum to be defeated.

I won't be canvassing for anything. I don't think anyone's mind will be changed on this matter.

People have already decided what way they're going to vote and that's fine by me. We live in a democracy.

JDD

professore wrote: »

On the divorce one, couples have to live separately for 5 years. This is far more onerous than in the UK. At least half the people I know are either separated or divorced. So I'd say the reality isn't much different than the UK. It's pretty safe to assume the abortion rates will be similar too.

Of the ten couples that I know from my college class, none are divorced or separated. I’m not sure it’s a scientific study though.

Cant post links on my phone, but google “divorce rates ireland vs uk”. First link is to an Irish Times article where comparison stats show we are seven times less likely to divorce than a UK person. That’s a combination of culture and stricter laws. Exactly what is proposed in the legislation post repeal.

Your slippery slope argument holds no water.

splinter65

pilly wrote: »

And neither has Splinter

What questions did I not answer pilly . I’m pro life. I fail to see how abortion anywhere in the world has improved the lives of women. I don’t think it’s the answer to anything.
You’ve shown terrific contempt for anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
I think that the referendum will possibly not be carried because of the 12 weeks being bandied around.
Of course I may very well be wrong.
I see terribly judge mental statements on both sides of the arguments.
What did you want to try to trip me up with...sorry, I mean ask me?

Ajsoprano

Have the referendum options been given yet?

JDD

To be fair my questions weren’t directed at splinter. He may have missed them. Click on my profile and my long post is about five posts back. Feel free to answer any time you like.

splinter65

JDD wrote: »

Of the ten couples that I know from my college class, none are divorced or separated. I’m not sure it’s a scientific study though.

Cant post links on my phone, but google “divorce rates ireland vs uk”. First link is to an Irish Times article where comparison stats show we are seven times less likely to divorce than a UK person. That’s a combination of culture and stricter laws. Exactly what is proposed in the legislation post repeal.

Your slippery slope argument holds no water.

Of my maternal grannies 14 grandchildren all married. The only divorce is the only cousin living abroad.

January

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Have the referendum options been given yet?

Yes. The proposal is to replace the 8th amendment with a wording in the constitution that allows the Oireachtas to legislate for terminations. I posted a few pages back the proposals that go along with this if you want to search my posts on this thread.

JDD

splinter65 wrote: »

Of my maternal grannies 14 grandchildren all married. The only divorce is the only cousin living abroad.

Well there you go, point proven.

I’m off to sleep. I’ll expect Percy (and Edward M) to have answered my questions tomorrow. I really don’t want to have to repeatedly ask.

c.p.w.g.w

splinter65 wrote: »

Of my maternal grannies 14 grandchildren all married. The only divorce is the only cousin living abroad.

Technically my parents are still married, because the cost of divorce is too high...they live in different countys with their respective partners...stats would have them in the successful marriage column

david75

To be fair a few more recent posters to the thread are pouring judgement on people just for having sex lives. These last few pages has stuff that reads like it’s from a very different time in Ireland. Long ago.
Surprised anyone’s even responding to these sorts of posts tbh.

Ajsoprano

I’m trying to find the actual referendum question but not finding it. Is it yes to 12 weeks , yes in medical reasons or no?

Or is it yes to 12 weeks or no?

Ajsoprano

david75 wrote: »

To be fair a few more recent posters to the thread are pouring judgement on people just for having sex lives. These last few pages has stuff that reads like it’s from a very different time in Ireland. Long ago.
Surprised anyone’s even responding to these sorts of posts tbh.

I don’t think anybody has a problem with anybody having a sex life.

JDD

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Technically my parents are still married, because the cost of divorce is too high...they live in different countys with their respective partners...stats would have them in the successful marriage column

True. And there’s probably similar couples both in Ireland and the UK in similar circumstances. I think the percentage rates of people in those situations would probably cancel each other out.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

To be fair a few more recent posters to the thread are pouring judgement on people just for having sex lives. These last few pages has stuff that reads like it’s from a very different time in Ireland. Long ago.
Surprised anyone’s even responding to these sorts of posts tbh.

You should really report the posts you think are outside the charter.
You’re judging those posters, and the posters who respond to them.
Lot of judging going on there Dav.

david75

splinter65 wrote: »

You should really report the posts you think are outside the charter.
You’re judging those posters, and the posters who respond to them.
Lot of judging going on there Dav.

There was one a few pages back ‘keep your legs closed’. That seemed to start a load of it.
On a thread where one side of the argument is literally involving themselves in women’s wombs, it’s to be expected I guess.
But women shouldnt have to explain why they can’t use certain contraceptives or don’t want to, and there’s been loads of that here as well.

c.p.w.g.w

JDD wrote: »

True. And there’s probably similar couples both in Ireland and the UK in similar circumstances. I think the percentage rates of people in those situations would probably cancel each other out.

I understand, but divorce seems a bit more straight forward in the UK and in Ireland there's a lot of catholic guilt

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

There was one a few pages back ‘keep your legs closed’. That seemed to start a load of it.
On a thread where one side of the argument is literally involving themselves in women’s wombs, it’s to be expected I guess.
But women shouldnt have to explain why they can’t use certain contraceptives or don’t want to, and there’s been loads of that here as well.

This isn’t a court. Nobody is being cross examined by a barrister.
Posts demanding personal information in a hectoring manner are against the charter and should be reported, never mind responded too.
This is not real life here. It’s a corner of cyberspace. There are no consequences to posting here.

Zubeneschamali

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Technically my parents are still married, because the cost of divorce is too high..

There is also the fact that you have to be separated for 5 years here before you can divorce.

Can all the people saying "Ooh, just amend the Constitution for Rape and FFA, it'll pass easily" please note that this condition was inserted into the Constitution to make the Amendment easier to pass, and now 20 years later we are stuck with it, and looking at another referendum to fix it.

kumate_champ07

if 2 people have a heated argument, and there is no possible resolution, they engage in mutual combat with the understanding that one or possibly both of them will die. this is against the law. but we accept this as legal on a larger scale and call it war


if a person slips off the edge of a cliff and i grab hold of their hand, but their mass is slowly pulling me down with them , if i let go they die, if i hold on we both die...

if a woman decides to end the human life growing inside her we need to be very careful where we draw the line.

January

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I’m trying to find the actual referendum question but not finding it. Is it yes to 12 weeks , yes in medical reasons or no?

Or is it yes to 12 weeks or no?

Its neither. The question will be something similar to 'do you wish to Repeal the 8th amendment and replace with the wording' the Oireachtas will have provision to legislate with regard to access to terminations'

We will not be voting on anything regarding time limits.

Ajsoprano

January wrote: »

Its neither. The question will be something similar to 'do you wish to Repeal the 8th amendment and replace with the wording' the Oireachtas will have provision to legislate with regard to access to terminations'

We will not be voting on anything regarding time limits.

Do you agree to let us do what we wanna do but we haven’t decided what we wanna do yet?

January

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Do you agree to let us do what we wanna do but we haven’t decided what we wanna do yet?

Well no they have the proposed legislation written up and are going to be debating it. I've already posted too but I'll copy and paste because it seems like you can't go back and look for some reason.


The short policy paper, which the minister published today affirms the following:

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.

That there will be distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.

That two medical practitioners will be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

One medical practitioner can permit to terminate a pregnancy where an emergency risk to health arises.

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth would be provided for

That two medical practitioners would be required to enable access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

That termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication will be permitted

That a time period would be required to elapse between the initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the a termination of pregnancy being carried out.

That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the legislation would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register.

The legislation will require that a termination of pregnancy should be certified by the appropriate medical practitioner(s) in all cases.

The General Scheme will require that the termination of pregnancy be notified to the Minister for Health by the appropriate medical practitioner.

The law will include provision for a formal review process for a woman in certain defined circumstances. It is noted that Section 10 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 established a formal mechanism whereby a woman can seek a review of the clinical assessment made by the original treating medical practitioner or team where their assessment is that the woman does not require a termination, or when the woman has been unable to obtain an opinion in this regard.

Conscientious objection in line with that provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 will be allowed so as to provide a right to conscientious objection for medical and nursing personnel.

A clause confirming that nothing in the legislation would limit or interfere with the right to travel or to information will be included.

That termination of pregnancy would be lawful in the circumstances set out in the grounds provided for in the new legislation, but it will retain the offence of intentional destruction of the unborn in defined circumstances.

A woman who procures or seeks to procure a termination of pregnancy for herself would not be guilty of an offence.

That the Minister for Health will publish an annual report of terminations of pregnancy in the preceding year

The HSE must also be prepared to report each year of reviews undertaken in the preceding year in defined circumstances, and will include the number of reviews carried out and the outcomes of the reviews. These reports will be submitted to the Minister for Health for publication.

That provision for consent similar to that contained in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be provided in the new legislation.

That the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be repealed in full.

Zubeneschamali

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Do you agree to let us do what we wanna do but we haven’t decided what we wanna do yet?

The "we" in your attempt at wit are the elected representatives of the people, so yes, this is exactly what we should do.

Let them legislate. It's what we pay them to do.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well because one is accurate and the other is not, that is why. In the context of abortion you ARE anti choice. However I am not "pro abortion". As I said in the post you seemingly decided to ignore..... people on BOTH sides of this issue want little or no abortions to be happening ideally. That is the opposite of pro abortion.

So no you are not fighting fire with fire. You are flailing at an accurate term with an inaccurate one. A difference worth learning.



Except again in the post you seemingly have decided to duck, dodge, and ignore I told you how the OPPOSITE is in fact true and I not only know what it superficially looks like, but I know all the intricate details of the entire gestation process.

I wonder if part of the reason you have decided to ignore and dodge my post is that I do not fit the straw man mould of a pro-choice voter that you have invented in your own imagination.

Or is it that you can not answer the questions I asked about that fetus, and what aspect of it you feel should be triggering our moral and ethical concerns about it's supposed right to life?



Except no contraception, even multiple ones, "ensure" any such thing. Each contraception, especially used in combination, cause massive decreases in the % probability of becoming pregnant. But even combining the pill with condoms for example does NOT push that % to zero.



That is a crass distortion of the reality of the pro choice narrative I am afraid. The reality is that pro-choice people, myself included, campaign for contraception use, cheaper and better access to it, and more education about it. But again you would know that if you had not decided to simply ignore my last post.

No abortion is not "the answer" to "effort". Abortion is a CHOICE people can make when, despite the effort, women find themselves pregnant against their will. And choice is all it is or is being sold as by anyone except YOUR ilk with phrases like "pro abortion" that pretend otherwise.



And how many people do you think are having sex? How many times do you think they do it? "Close to 100%" means not 100%. What is it then? 99%?

1% of a large number is still a large number. Even a 99% effective contraception regime will STILL result in many unplanned and often unwanted pregnancies.

Do the math.



And yet I did NONE of that myself and what did you do? You simply dodged and ignored my post. Which tells me you simply see what you want to see, and pick up on only the posts and posters you imagine fit the profile you have invented. Ignore those who do not fit it, because they will not fill out your agenda and profiling.



"To me" being the important words in that sentence, because what you certainly have not done is offered a single piece of argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to establish a 12 week gestated fetus as a "person". So "To me it is a person" means nothing more to me than "To me Elvis is still alive". Fantasy is as fantasy does.

Now if you want to actually present any of the above as part of debate rather than preaching I am more than all ears.



Glad you asked. There is no reason in science or philosophy on offer to "care" (or as I put it, to have moral and ethical concern for) an entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

The fetus when it is generally aborted (the near totality of choice based abortions happen before week 16 almost consistently in EVERY country that has choice based abortion) not just slightly, but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness and sentience. In fact it also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it too.

What point do we, or at least should we, start to care about it? At the point when ANY significant level of doubt comes into play that that faculty may have formed.

Spoiler alert: There is not a shred of concern at 0-16 weeks.



It is alive. It is human. In taxonomy. It is not a Human Person. And it has no attributes upon which to afford it moral and ethical concern. And this is demonstrable because all the attributes you just listed ALSO exist in other "Life" we kill all the time.

The last burger you or someone you know ate? Yep it had a heartbeat, response to stimulus, limbs, brain synapses and the whole lot. And yet to happily kill it by the millions. That last anti bacterial you took? Yes even a bacteria can respond to stimulus.

So when you write "I think I have caught you lot out on this point" the reality is you have caught YOURSELF out. Because you have just listed a string of attributes that DEMONSTRABLY do not mediate a "right to life" in our general ethics and morality.

So having shot yourself in the foot, limp over to the armchair and sit down and listen to the simple next step in that mental process. Ask yourself if those attributes DO NOT mediate our moral and ethical concerns, what attributes actually do.

And you will then, like me, likely find that the answer you come up with for that question is PRECISELY the attributes the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just partially lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks.

And having had that revelation you will then suddenly, and completely, understand one clear and concise pro choice position. Yay you!

But if you need further introspection on the matter then have a little thought experiment. Imagine our technology..... and there are people who believe we are not too many generations from this...... reaches the point that we can map your consciousness into a computer and keep you alive after your body is dead. Imagine then I do this and install your consciousness into the equivalent of a toaster. No limbs. No heart beat. No flesh and blood. Just silicon and software.

Should I be allowed torture you, kill you, or have my way with you because you have NONE of the attributes you just listed a 12 week old fetus having. OR would your awareness sitting inside this toaster like box have something to which I should show moral and ethical concern. If so..... why do you think that is. What does that toaster have that should concern me? And do you notice your answer to that question is PERCISELY what the fetus does not have, never has had, and is a way off having.




We turn life support off all the time. So I am not sure what your point here is. In fact I am not even convinced at this moment that YOU know what your point here is.

But the distinction you are missing here is that a coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness and sentience. It might not be operating entirely, but it still has it. This is distinct from the fetus which A) Does not have it and Never has had it.

Did you ever think of applying for a job as a miscarriage Councillor?
I m sure you'd be a big hit.

Ismisejack

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

We don't have to come up with an excuse because we don't believe that it is killing anything. Killing is taking a life, a fetus isn't a life it has the potential to become a life. We simply believe that a woman's choice to either continue or end the pregnancy be her own and nobody but her should be able to make that decision.

So you can keep shouting all you like about the right to life of the unborn but the supreme Court has ruled that outside of the 8th the unborn has no other rights and the government are currently bringing forward as referendum to Repeal that amendment. If its repealed a woman will have choice which is a huge step forward in this country and if its not repealed then sure we will shout louder and hopefully it won't take another 30 odd years before a government has the balls to tackle the issue again.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Did you ever think of applying for a job as a miscarriage Councillor? I m sure you'd be a big hit.

Perhaps you have not been reading my posts all that closely, but did I not already mention in at least three posts that I have actually worked with women on that very thing?

But seriously given the amount of posts and questions from me you have simply outright dodged and ignored.... what favors do you think you are doing with this snidery?