The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

conorhal

LirW wrote: »

If abortion on demand up to 12 weeks would be legalized, you won't find out the sex of your baby that early. You could only via tests, and these aren't accurate or shouldn't be taken that early. So in that case, this issue can be avoided.

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

nozzferrahhtoo

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

I see no reason why we really should ban such things anyway. If we can find no moral or ethical reasons to say aborting a fetus at 12/16 weeks is a bad thing in the first place.... and certainly no one on any boards.ie threads have yet......... then the reasons people choose to have one should be irrelevant to us.

The reasons some people do it might make us uncomfortable at times, but so the hell what? It does not mean they should not have the right.

For example, you have the right to eat mars bars. If you told me that you were eating 50 a day with the purpose of becoming morbidly obese.... your motivation might disgust me, but I still believe in your right to eat mars bars.

Similarly I might find someone wants to abort because they think the fetus is (fe)male. Their reasoning might be abhorrent to me, but it does not affect what I think their rights should be.

conorhal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no reason why we really should ban such things anyway. If we can find no moral or ethical reasons to say aborting a fetus at 12/16 weeks is a bad thing in the first place.... and certainly no one on any boards.ie threads have yet......... then the reasons people choose to have one should be irrelevant to us.

The reasons some people do it might make us uncomfortable at times, but so the hell what? It does not mean they should not have the right.

For example, you have the right to eat mars bars. If you told me that you were eating 50 a day with the purpose of becoming morbidly obese.... your motivation might disgust me, but I still believe in your right to eat mars bars.

Similarly I might find someone wants to abort because they think the fetus is (fe)male. Their reasoning might be abhorrent to me, but it does not affect what I think their rights should be.

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

LirW

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

No this is not true. Again at 12 weeks it is close to impossible to know the sex of an embryo. At least no Ultrasound is going to show because it looks the same at that stage in boys and girls.

The UK is a pretty unique example regarding abortion. Also the statistics speak that almost all abortions are carried out before 16 weeks gestation with an overwhelming majority before 12 weeks.

If this would be the new legislations it's nearly impossible to terminate because it's the wrong unless people have a sh1tload of money. And these people would find a way to terminate anyway.

LirW

conorhal wrote: »

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

What societal effect should this have? We're not in China with some ridiculous One-Child policy.

nozzferrahhtoo

conorhal wrote: »

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

What effects do you envision?

NuMarvel

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

It's funny you use the UK to claim that it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions, when only earlier today someone linked to an article that said sex selective abortions are banned in the UK...

Crea

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

Up to 12 weeks it's not possible to assess the gender of a foetus by scan . In fact gender scans can only be done from 18 weeks onwards. Sex selective abortions cannot happen up to the 12 weeks recommended by the CA

LirW

Crea wrote: »

Up to 12 weeks it's not possible to assess the gender of a foetus by scan . In fact gender scans can only be done from 28 weeks onwards. Sex selective abortions cannot happen up to the 12 weeks recommended by the CA

Not necessarily true. You'd get offered to assess it at the big scan around 20 weeks. Anything from week 30 onwards is actually more difficult to assess, because there is less space and they might have the cord between their legs.

Crea

Sorry it was a mis type which i corrected. Gender scans are given from 18 weeks. My argument regarding sex selective abortion still stands

LirW

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Crea

LirW wrote: »

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Given that the recommendation is for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and it's impossible to ascertain the gender at that stage it is completely a non issue.
Another false flag being raised by anti abortion groups

spookwoman

LirW wrote: »

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Not very helpful calling someone a nutjob who might want an abortion because of the sex. Tbh people want the choice and it's really none of anyone's business why they choose to have one.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, and water is wet. But when we get passed stating the basic obvious stuff, the questions I asked still remain.

I asked "What is it you think "rights" are at the level of philosophy. How and why are they formed. To what exactly are they assigned and on what basis? "

Saying "they are decided on the basis of morality" leaves the question unanswered. WHAT moral arguments are used, in what way, to decide this.

it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery. this debate operates on the basis of whether you
a. believe in the repeal of the 8th.
b. believe in abortion on demand or not, which would likely come in if the 8th was repealed..
c. believe that the unborn should or shouldn't continue to have the right to life as much as is practical, and that protection as much as is practical should or shouldn't remain within the constitution

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When the topic of abortion comes up, the failure of the anti-choice campaigner tends to be that either A) they do not know what the philosophical underpinnings of rights are or should be or they think they know, but have not noticed that none of them give a single coherent reason as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have them.

because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter. they believe that the unborn have a right to life as much as is practical, that is all that ultimately matters.
i know you want to bring ridiculous deep essay style irrelevant whataboutery arguments over nothing into what admitidly isn't a simplistic debate, but people have better things to do then argue it because it's not relevant. whether the 8th is repealed or not will not be won on the basis of why rights are given to the unborn.
being against abortion on demand isn't "anti-choice" the unborn in this country have some bit of a voice and that is absolutely right in my view. the so-called pro-choice need to realise that it's not all about you as much as you want it to be. the unborn have rights as well in ireland.

NuMarvel

Crea wrote: »

Given that the recommendation is for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and it's impossible to ascertain the gender at that stage it is completely a non issue.
Another false flag being raised by anti abortion groups

I don't think it was even discussed as a reason during the Citizens Assembly. Certainly not in the last weekend anyway, when they were deciding on what to vote on.

For the purposes of keeping this thread someway coherent (but not wanting to backseat mod), maybe we should limit discussion to what the Committee will recommend to the Dáil. I can't see the Dáil wanting to add more exceptions after the 12 week mark, especially ones that haven't been discussed by the Assembly or the Committee.

AnGaelach

spookwoman wrote: »

Not very helpful calling someone a nutjob who might want an abortion because of the sex. Tbh people want the choice and it's really none of anyone's business why they choose to have one.

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

spookwoman

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery.

In other words you do not want to, or maybe can not, answer the question. So you want to dismiss it. Whether the fetus should have a right to life or not is CENTRAL to the entire abortion debate, so you can not just dismiss it and dodge.

And if people can not come up with an argument as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have any such right, then that is important to highlight.

end of the road wrote: »

because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. We are a social species and we decide on our laws and morality and ethics in a process of ongoing discourse and our ability to persuade each other about what is, or should be, true about the world.

If you want to merely declare at people that X has right Y, but will not or simply can not offer a SINGLE argument as to why that is the case..... then it pays to highlight that lack where it arises.

And you are not alone. I have studied this topic for over 2 decades. And of the many.... many many.... anti choice people I have met over those years not one of them has yet been able to explain why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should be considered to have a right to life.

If you merely want to assert, rather than defend, your claims that is of course your right. But let us not pretend that that is because the things you can not defend are irrelevant.

LirW

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

But this is not how pregnancy works. It is not a linear thing that you either like or not. People decide to have abortions because of a variety of reasons. A woman that chooses to do so has usually different problems. You abort because you don't wanna have or can support a child.
If you want a child, no matter what, you are starting to get attached to it.

We're not living in a society where the wrong sex could mean existential problems for you and your family.
Could that mean that people from extreme minorities or parallel societies opt for a gender-based abortion? Yes, but they'd find a way to do so anyway.
Same with everyone else really that wants a specific one.
This would be a very marginal problem and is just a fearmongering because the real problem falls flat, which is that women don't have safe access to abortion when they can't afford to travel and the maternity care implications that the 8th brings.

Crea

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

The logical conclusion of your argument is to force women to remain pregnant when, for whatever reason, they really don't want to be.

AnGaelach

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

LirW

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

nozzferrahhtoo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

As I explained to another user earlier this afternoon however, the difference between "Do not like murder, then do not kill people" and "Do not like abortion, then do not have one" arguments is that in the former case we have moral and ethical arguments against murder.

With abortion however no one, including yourself, are presenting moral or ethical arguments against abortion. You do not PERSONALLY like abortion then? Fine, then do not have one! But that line of thinking can not be made analogous in murder because there are genuine moral and ethical reasons why no one should murder, rather than a handful of vocal cranks being personally against it.

Hoboo

LirW wrote: »

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

Sounds like a very serious situation to risk putting yourself in for the sake of sex. No? I certainly wouldn't have sex if it meant a risk of trauma, depression and leaving me in pieces.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hoboo wrote: »

Sounds like a very serious situation to risk putting yourself in for the sake of sex. No? I certainly wouldn't have sex if it meant a risk of trauma, depression and leaving me in pieces.

LIFE runs the risk of trauma, depression and leaving us in pieces. We all seem content to keep on living however

The constituent parts of life however, see us making balanced decisions between our desires, and such risks, all the time. You get in a vehicle, you run those risks. You go out for a party, you run those risks.

Each of us balances what we want in life, and the risks of pursuing it, all the time. Sex should certainly be no different.

Captain Obvious

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

Pointless argument as it ignores the core belief of pro-choice people i.e. that the unborn is a life deserving of protection.

LirW

First, sex is a human instinct and people can suffer mentally and physically from abstaining from it. People have sex since the beginning of time and people never had less sex. Abortion is around since the beginning of time and the shadow number of abortion was pretty high as well as the death of the woman undergoing one.

Secondly women who don't wish to be pregnant are on contraception. Yet no contraception is 100% safe.
I mentioned it earlier today, if your BC is 99.9% safe, each time you have sex the chance you'd get pregnant beside being on it is 1:1000. Which is pretty small but not eradicated.

You've ever taken painkillers or had a local anesthetic? They also have very small chances of serious side effects, in the worst case amputation or death. Yet the majority of people choose to take them.

Women are effectively doing what they can to not get pregnant. But sometimes life goes wrong and it happens.

maxsmum

LirW wrote: »

Not necessarily true. You'd get offered to assess it at the big scan around 20 weeks. Anything from week 30 onwards is actually more difficult to assess, because there is less space and they might have the cord between their legs.

A blood test from Mum from 9 weeks is available here and tells you sex if you want to know. Google the Panorama or Harmony tests. It's a chromosomal test so 99.9% accurate. I had it and plenty of women I know did too.

LirW

They do come for a price though and they aren't made for the gender assessment but ruling out FFAs and disabilities. The gender assessment is a nice bonus from it.
The normal public patient won't find out until a scan shows.

maxsmum

LirW wrote: »

They do come for a price though and they aren't made for the gender assessment but ruling out FFAs and disabilities. The gender assessment is a nice bonus from it.
The normal public patient won't find out until a scan shows.

True and I don't think the normal public patient is even offered it, which is another day's work. Listen I don't think for a second that people will be have sex-selective abortions but it is an important test that is available and few people seem to know about it - although I have known 6 pregnant women the last 1 and half years or so and 5 of them had it. 2 were public patients and paid out of pocket.

The friend who didn't have it done out of interest said she wouldn't because she would never have an abortion so didn't want to know if there were any abnormalities - there you go - choice in action!

end of the road

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

someone murdering someone else doesn't effect me. doesn't mean they aren't wrong. it doesn't have to effect one directly for it to be wrong. if someone is aborting their child based on the sex they are a nutjob, we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.

Crea wrote: »

The logical conclusion of your argument is to force women to remain pregnant when, for whatever reason, they really don't want to be.

sometimes hard choices have to be made to protect others. in the case of abortion on demand, we have to protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical, so we don't allow it bar extreme circumstances. when it comes to someone doing harm to others, we have a duty to step in as society where practical and stop that from happening. so if it is a choice between allowing someone do harm to the unborn because the unborn is inconvenient, or protecting the unborn as much as it is possible, then the unborn should be protected.

LirW wrote: »

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

the other option is the allowing of the killing of the unborn. as i said, hard choices do have to be made, and while i can safely say none of us do want people to suffer, we do have to decide ultimately which of the situations must be prevented more. for me it is where killing will take place, as much as is practical to do so. yes people are traveling abroad or taking pills here, but there are abortions which are stopped by the 8th.
there are other issues caused by the 8th of course, and i think if there was a guarantee that no abortion on demand would be legislated for in ireland, the referendum to repeal it would definitely get a yes vote.

Hoboo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

LIFE runs the risk of trauma, depression and leaving us in pieces. We all seem content to keep on living however

The constituent parts of life however, see us making balanced decisions between our desires, and such risks, all the time. You get in a vehicle, you run those risks. You go out for a party, you run those risks.

Each of us balances what we want in life, and the risks of pursuing it, all the time. Sex should certainly be no different.

You're only giving examples of risking your own life. The killing of another life, due to ones choices, is completely different. Thats risking another life for your own needs or wants. If you were talking about Euthanasia of oneself for taking risks with unwanted results then your argument would be perfectly valid. Not sure too many would take that option, regardless of possible trauma or depression.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.

I do not think it qualifies as "sexism" per se though. Wanting to be the parent of one gender or the other seems pretty dumb to me, but sexism is only one of the possible motivators for it.

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn should be protected.

I think sentient entities should be protected and given rights. Non-sentient entities like rocks, table legs, and 12 week old fetuses for me do not qualify morally or ethically for any such protection. So I am all for changes to the current status quo that have us doing so.

Pregnant women however are sentient entities. And I am all for maximizing both their choices in life, and their personal well being, where practical and possible.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hoboo wrote: »

You're only giving examples of risking your own life. The killing of another life, due to ones choices, is completely different.

Sure, and I hope you remember that next time you have a burger which killed a cow. Write on paper which killed a tree. Or take a medicine which will kill millions of bacteria.

Or you could stop and realize that mere "life" is not solely what we predicate moral and ethical concern on. There is more to it than that. And when you identify what that "more" actually is, you will notice that it is EXACTLY the thing that a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation not only lacks entirely, but it lacks also many of the pre-requisites for it too.

Hoboo wrote: »

Thats risking another life for your own needs or wants.

Which you likely ALSO do every day. Ever drive a car?

That is what life is, a series of actions which at every turn risk the life or the well being of you or those around you. And life is about balancing our desire to perform actions, with the risk inherent to yourself and others in those actions.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think sentient entities should be protected and given rights. Non-sentient entities like rocks, table legs, and 12 week old fetuses for me do not qualify morally or ethically for any such protection. So I am all for changes to the current status quo that have us doing so.

a 12 week unborn is on the way to being a sentient entity so is not comparible to a rock or a table, therefore it must remain to be given protection as it is becoming a human life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Pregnant women however are sentient entities. And I am all for maximizing both their choices in life, and their personal well being, where practical and possible.

and that is my view also. however when it effects the unborn, then bar extreme circumstances the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

a 12 week unborn is on the way to being a sentient entity so is not comparible to a rock or a table

Except it is comparable. None of them are sentient NOW. You pretty much say so yourself.

Just because you can find differences between three things, does not mean the things are not comparable.

end of the road wrote: »

therefore it must remain to be given protection as it is becoming a human life.

Why "must" it? Aside from saying "must" can you ground that assertion in any way?

end of the road wrote: »

and that is my view also. however when it effects the unborn, then bar extreme circumstances the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.

And as I said that is where we differ. I think people should have free choice when their choice does not impact on the rights of another sentient entity. Since we are agreed the fetus at 12/16 weeks is NOT one, I see no reason to curtail the rights and choices of an ACTUAL sentient entity to protect a NON sentient entity.

Nor are you giving me any other than declaring "must" at me.

maxsmum

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.

I hear your 'must' and I say no thanks very much to you telling me what I 'must' do if I found myself in dire straits with an unwanted pregnancy. The people will speak anyway. And if it's a no, then I still 'must' be able to access abortion in the UK as previously, so the status quo will continue. You telling me what I 'must' do is still irrelevant.

Hoboo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure, and I hope you remember that next time you have a burger which killed a cow. Write on paper which killed a tree. Or take a medicine which will kill millions of bacteria.

Or you could stop and realize that mere "life" is not solely what we predicate moral and ethical concern on. There is more to it than that. And when you identify what that "more" actually is, you will notice that it is EXACTLY the thing that a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation not only lacks entirely, but it lacks also many of the pre-requisites for it too.



Which you likely ALSO do every day. Ever drive a car?

That is what life is, a series of actions which at every turn risk the life or the well being of you or those around you. And life is about balancing our desire to perform actions, with the risk inherent to yourself and others in those actions.

Life is a series of actions which run a risk of the well being of me and others, sure, but I don't drive a car safe in the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, it won't be me that gets killed, it will definitely be someone else. IF abortion was not an option, but Euthanasia was, would you choose Euthanasia as an option to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? I very much doubt it.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is comparable. None of them are sentient NOW. You pretty much say so yourself.

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just because you can find differences between three things, does not mean the things are not comparable.

it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why "must" it? Aside from saying "must" can you ground that assertion in any way?

And as I said that is where we differ. I think people should have free choice when their choice does not impact on the rights of another sentient entity. Since we are agreed the fetus at 12/16 weeks is NOT one, I see no reason to curtail the rights and choices of an ACTUAL sentient entity to protect a NON sentient entity.

a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.

maxsmum wrote: »

I hear your 'must' and I say no thanks very much to you telling me what I 'must' do if I found myself in dire straits with an unwanted pregnancy. The people will speak anyway. And if it's a no, then I still 'must' be able to access abortion in the UK as previously, so the status quo will continue. You telling me what I 'must' do is still irrelevant.

we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not religious, I'm pro-life. Most of the people I know who are pro-life aren't religious.

That's very odd, because the 8th was opposed in its original referendum by all Christian churches in Ireland except the Catholic church, before you even got to the godless atheists like me.

It is not just religiously inspired, it is not just Christian, it is actually sectarian: Roman Catholic dogma jammed into our Constitution.

Belfast

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

libertarian stance is as far as I know you can do what you like at long as it does ot hurt a some one else.
Taking heroin . no problem
Killing someone that is a problem.
Abortion ? that depends on when you define the start of life. If life does not start till after birth the abortion is just medical service.
if life start at implantation in the womb as define by the Irish courts then abortion is the taking of a human life.
American libertarians as-far as I know are split on the issue of prochoice/prolife

spookwoman

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

B*llox you don't care about my life unless it is something you don't agree with and we don't all agree what is condoned in this society. Some people are against the death penalty and some are for it. Some people want to make drugs legal others don't. If you want to kill someone you better make it the perfect murder if you don't want to get caught and sent to jail but then some like you will ask when is it murder and should all life including the unborn be included when accusing someone of murder
If you think abortion is murder then that is your prerogative, no one is forcing you to have an abortion. But you want to force women to have children they don't want, you want to force your morals and your beliefs on another person because of something you don't like.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

someone murdering someone else doesn't effect me. doesn't mean they aren't wrong. it doesn't have to effect one directly for it to be wrong. if someone is aborting their child based on the sex they are a nutjob, we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.



sometimes hard choices have to be made to protect others. in the case of abortion on demand, we have to protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical, so we don't allow it bar extreme circumstances. when it comes to someone doing harm to others, we have a duty to step in as society where practical and stop that from happening. so if it is a choice between allowing someone do harm to the unborn because the unborn is inconvenient, or protecting the unborn as much as it is possible, then the unborn should be protected.



the other option is the allowing of the killing of the unborn. as i said, hard choices do have to be made, and while i can safely say none of us do want people to suffer, we do have to decide ultimately which of the situations must be prevented more. for me it is where killing will take place, as much as is practical to do so. yes people are traveling abroad or taking pills here, but there are abortions which are stopped by the 8th.
there are other issues caused by the 8th of course, and i think if there was a guarantee that no abortion on demand would be legislated for in ireland, the referendum to repeal it would definitely get a yes vote.

Do you think women who have taken abortion pills here should be jailed for upto 14 years?

davedanon

end of the road wrote: »

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever.



it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.



a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.



we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.

When are you due to become sentient?

AnGaelach

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I explained to another user earlier this afternoon however, the difference between "Do not like murder, then do not kill people" and "Do not like abortion, then do not have one" arguments is that in the former case we have moral and ethical arguments against murder.

With abortion however no one, including yourself, are presenting moral or ethical arguments against abortion. You do not PERSONALLY like abortion then? Fine, then do not have one! But that line of thinking can not be made analogous in murder because there are genuine moral and ethical reasons why no one should murder, rather than a handful of vocal cranks being personally against it.

The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another. To pseudo-quote you, "You do not PERSONALLY" believe there is a moral or ethical argument in regards to abortion. You're dismissing the moral arguments out of hand because you wish to, just as someone who doesn't consider a human life to be worthy of protection dismisses those moral arguments out of hand.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's very odd, because the 8th was opposed in its original referendum by all Christian churches in Ireland except the Catholic church, before you even got to the godless atheists like me.

It was also proposed by Fine Gael and opposed by Fine Gael. What is this, Schroedinger's referendum? It does not really matter who supported it or opposed it, the point of contention was that only religious "mentally impaired slaves" are pro-life, which is an utterly preposterous position to hold. One that reeks of misplaced condescension from those segments of society who believe unelected bondholders took down the Twin Towers.

AnGaelach

spookwoman wrote: »

If you think abortion is murder then that is your prerogative, no one is forcing you to have an abortion. But you want to force women to have children they don't want, you want to force your morals and your beliefs on another person because of something you don't like.

If you could perhaps tell me what I want a little more forcefully, maybe I'll believe you instead of myself!

davedanon

I don't believe foetuses are people, but people can be foetuses.


Just look at Ronan Mullen.

davedanon

Heh. I will gladly take one for the team.

REPEAL THE 8TH

Kiwi in IE

end of the road wrote: »

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever.


a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.

A Zygote will eventually become sentient too if not miscarried or aborted. Is a zygote also of equal value to a born, sentient woman who is carrying it? Can you truthfully say that you think a fused sperm and egg is of the same value as an actual person?