The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's why I preceded what I said with 'not necessarily', because generally the 8th isn't an obstruction to the vast, vast majority of women who are pregnant and want to continue their pregnancy and give birth and want to raise a child. That's one of the reasons I think at least from my experiences of talking to women and young girls about these issues that they simply can't relate to some of the issues raised by the existence of the 8th amendment - because it's never been an issue that they have personally been affected by, so they aren't aware of the potential issues for others. They can go all the way through pregnancy and never have to even think about the 8th amendment. I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong, I'm just going to say I'm not in the business of scaremongering people.

So I've given you specific examples where women did get substandard maternity care and your reply is "most women aren't affected by this" - umm. OK.

You've given no evidence of course, just "my personal experience" but you do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, and "personal experience" is not a study. And especially not vague hand waves at "personal experience".

The reality is that most pregnancies go fine, and women usually aren't made aware of how their care is affected by the peculiarities of Irish legislation. How would they know, when they usually haven't given birth elsewhere? Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and the work of AIMS for example (a patients' group set up to improve maternity care, not to bring about repeal) has made this painfully clear.

Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.

Evidence please. I'm getting really rather sick of this.

They're slowly cottoning onto that idea in the States whereas in Ireland where we are about 20 years behind the social curve, there's now talks of introducing tax relief for hiring child minders while both parents go out to work to try and ease the financial burden of childcare. Both my parents worked and we were all practically raised by our neighbour who never took a penny from my parents, but who managed to take care of all seven of us on a State pension! Of course with every generation, expectations rise, and it would be nothing short of a miraculous achievement were a pensioner able to do that today :pac:

I was going to skip out the rest of that post, but I happened to notice this, which is irrelevant to the discussion but like... WTF??

Have I read you right? Your parents worked and expected a neighbour to look after you for nothing??

Hey, my parents both worked, in the 70s when most mothers still stayed home, and they always paid for someone to look after us. Always.

And here you are lecturing about people needing to take responsibility for their children. But you know what, your neighbours shouldn't have had to provide free labour for your parents. You don't think that was a free subsidy?

And you're even complaining because today's pensions wouldn't be enough for those neighbours - so who do you think pays the pensions? Your parents were doubly subsidized, by the neighbours and by the state. And earning a decent wage I'm sure too.

(I'm still wondering if you meant something else? I can't get my head around it.)

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I offered evidence of it. You don't accept my word is good enough and that's fair enough. I didn't question a single person who gave their accounts of their experiences

Anecdote is not evidence, even if it was not coming from.... for example........ someone prone to having JUST the right personal and unverifiable anecdote(s) that they Walter Mitty into in a wide variety of thread topics.

But I do not question most people who give personal experience accounts either. Generally. It depends what they are doing WITH that personal experience. Merely offering it, or offering it to make a small point, is A-OK with me.

But when a convenient and timely personal anecdote is offered that supports a notion that is in no way substantiated by any other source, least of all any you have moved to offer, and goes starkly against all the knowledge and experience of the listener....... they are quite right to call it into question.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above?

Not as much any more because now we hear the modern equivalent of it. We hear stories of people importing medication from abroad to induce their own abortions.

Medication they can not verify the safety of, can not seek medical consultation before taking, and will feel having broken the law and so forth that they would be less inclined to go seek medical advice in the face of side effects and/or complications.

If you think no one is having "scalding baths, and ruptured membranes with knitting needles" in Ireland today (or in other areas where abortion was not available) in their attempts to self-terminate their own pregnancies, then fine. It would not be the first time today you were out of touch with reality. But the modern version of it certainly is there. They are still taking risks to obtain one, they are just doing so with modern technology.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion

Not nearly as much as you seem to think I warrant. But by all meant cite some figures on this for one. Or is this all "in your experience" too? Curious the interest you have in putting people off abortion however given you think women should be able to terminate their pregnancy at any stage of the pregnancy though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be more in favour of a system that provides intervention and support long before any woman would ever get to that point, before they ever even were to become pregnant in the first place.

Why "more"? You sound as if they are all somehow mutually exclusive. I think we should be working towards improving the choices of women in total. Before they get pregnant. And after. And after in terms of maximizing ALL their choices in such a way that those seeking abortion are those who genuinely and fully want to........ without feeling they are compelled by any social, economic, political, or peer pressures to go one way OR the other.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves

Me too. Which is why I want our country to be one where women can obtain abortions up to 12/16/20 weeks without having to justify, or even explain, their decision to anyone. This indeed would give them the freedom to decide for themselves, and improve their situation in regards the resources required to do it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either.

Yes, it starts for example by educating them as children in the class room to the absolute best of our ability. An education you asserted without any justification, substantiation or basis would have no effect outside said classroom.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah that last exchange with nozz was just painful

Yeah I can imagine an unwillingness to retract blatantly false and erroneous statements is painful when combined with people pointing out your blatantly false and erroneous statements. That can not feel good.

The fact remains whether you like it or not, or whether you admit the error of your statement or not, that there is a WEALTH of information and data out there as to the efficacy of sexual education in the classroom.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

in a Catholic ethos school, I really wouldn't expect they'll be inviting anyone other than a religious group in to give talks on relationships and sex education.

Which is yet another reason and argument for having a state curriculum the content of which, and access to which, is entirely secular. Then the quality sexual education required can be delivered in the manner required, without religious bias being able to color, edit, or distort it.

Whatever their personal hobby tells them about sex, they can discuss in their own extra curricular modules or in their own parish clubhouse.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally, I would suggest it's best left to the parents.

It really isn't. There is no data at all showing that parents generally provide sex education in a useful, or timely manner.... if they do so at all. Further given the sexual education of those parents was itself likely poor in their own school days, one can not hope the chinese whispers version of it they hand on will be much superior.

Appeals to "IT is the parents best interest" do not convince me I fear. Many things, such as not letting their children sit in front of screens for the majority of their day, are in the best interests of parents. But they are incapable, unwilling, or even unable to do many of them.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

How is listing the options available giving advice they didnt want?

Are you suggesting that by informing a woman that abortion is a choice this is advice she doesnt want to hear?

These women were already aware that abortion was an option. I hadn't thought I needed to spell that out too. I didn't say that anyone "listed the options available" either by the way, in your usual way of ignoring what I actually said and substituting it with whatever suits you. I said they were advised that they might be better off to have an abortion. They weren't looking to be told that they might be better off to have an abortion when they were looking for advice on continuing their pregnancy. You keep missing that bit, and whether it's on purpose or by accident I'm still not sure yet.

I don't particularly care one way or the other if you aren't willing to accept my word as good enough. I do care however when you either by mistake or on purpose, misrepresent what I've actually said.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I didn't? I offered that as evidence before you ever posted about fake abortion clinics! I was making the point in relation to young women who went to family planning clinics looking for advice about continuing their pregnancy, not looking for advice about abortion. In case it isn't yet clear - that's not the kind of advice they went there looking for, and that's not the kind of advice they wanted.

Geez, plain english, it really isn't that hard, and it shouldn't be this tedious.

Saying it happened is not evidence.
Geez. It really isn't that hard.

No, it shouldn't be this tedious but some people will insist that just because they stated it then it's true.

Two scenarios:
Woman :" I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)".
Clinic : " Abortion might be your best option..."



Woman: " I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)".
'Clinic' : " Well if you have an abortion there is a very real chance you'll get breast cancer and become a child abuser."

You presented one of those as a bad thing to make some point or other about something. You did not give any evidence the bad thing you were referring to actually happened. It may have but we don't know. If it did then what happens is the woman says "No, I don't want an abortion" so that is ruled out as an option and the remaining options can be considered.
It's hardly as if the FPC said "you have to have an abortion and that's that no choice!"

Seriously, woman goes to FPC, is told (presumably having outlined her circumstances) that abortion might be the best option for her is hardly outrageous. It's not like they told her if she didn't have an abortion she'll abuse the child now is it?

Like I said - faux outrage on your part that you decided to share and when called on it you get all stroppy.

All you have done really is undermine your own position by demonstrating you make claims you can't substantiate. But if you are ok with that so am I.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These women were already aware that abortion was an option. I hadn't thought I needed to spell that out too. I didn't say that anyone "listed the options available" either by the way, in your usual way of ignoring what I actually said and substituting it with whatever suits you. I said they were advised that they might be better off to have an abortion. They weren't looking to be told that they might be better off to have an abortion when they were looking for advice on continuing their pregnancy. You keep missing that bit, and whether it's on purpose or by accident I'm still not sure yet.

I don't particularly care one way or the other if you aren't willing to accept my word as good enough. I do care however when you either by mistake or on purpose, misrepresent what I've actually said.

And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.

What do you think - did this, allegedly, even happen in Ireland or was it some other country where abortion might have been available as an option in the first place?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I was going to skip out the rest of that post, but I happened to notice this, which is irrelevant to the discussion but like... WTF??

Have I read you right? Your parents worked and expected a neighbour to look after you for nothing??

Hey, my parents both worked, in the 70s when most mothers still stayed home, and they always paid for someone to look after us. Always.

And here you are lecturing about people needing to take responsibility for their children. But you know what, your neighbours shouldn't have had to provide free labour for your parents. You don't think that was a free subsidy?

And you're even complaining because today's pensions wouldn't be enough for those neighbours - so who do you think pays the pensions? Your parents were doubly subsidized, by the neighbours and by the state. And earning a decent wage I'm sure too.

(I'm still wondering if you meant something else? I can't get my head around it.)

No, you haven't read that right. You appear to have missed the bit where I said that my neighbour never took a penny off my parents. To most people that would imply that my parents offered her money, but she wouldn't take it. Not to you of course, unsurprisingly.

And no, I'm not here lecturing anyone about taking responsibility for their children, I'm here having a discussion, in which you seem desperate to make sure that not just I, but now my parents, are painted out to be terrible people.

I would expect any grown adult would simply laugh at such childish nonsense, as I'm doing now. You'll just have to take my word for that too though.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Saying it happened is not evidence.
Geez. It really isn't that hard.

No, it shouldn't be this tedious but some people will insist that just because they stated it then it's true.

Two scenarios:
Woman :" I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)".
Clinic : " Abortion might be your best option..."



Woman: " I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)".
'Clinic' : " Well if you have an abortion there is a very real chance you'll get breast cancer and become a child abuser."

You presented one of those as a bad thing to make some point or other about something. You did not give any evidence the bad thing you were referring to actually happened. It may have but we don't know. If it did then what happens is the woman says "No, I don't want an abortion" so that is ruled out as an option and the remaining options can be considered.
It's hardly as if the FPC said "you have to have an abortion and that's that no choice!"

Seriously, woman goes to FPC, is told (presumably having outlined her circumstances) that abortion might be the best option for her is hardly outrageous. It's not like they told her if she didn't have an abortion she'll abuse the child now is it?

Like I said - faux outrage on your part that you decided to share and when called on it you get all stroppy.

All you have done really is undermine your own position by demonstrating you make claims you can't substantiate. But if you are ok with that so am I.

Neither of those scenarios are based upon the account I gave, and any faux outrage or stroppiness you imagine is also entirely something you've made up yourself to try and apply it to me. But I'm ok with that as your assertions don't change my position, nor my demeanour for that matter, in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

Gets you a few likes though, that's important :pac:

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.

In fairness, as I said way back in the thread - if all of us were to restrict ourselves to the standard that we could only post what was directly relevant to keeping/repealing the 8th, then this thread wouldn't even be past one page.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Neither of those scenarios are based upon the account I gave, and any faux outrage or stroppiness you imagine is also entirely something you've made up yourself to try and apply it to me. But I'm ok with that as your assertions don't change my position, nor my demeanour for that matter, in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

Gets you a few likes though, that's important :pac:

Good Man.

You keep going as you are. Sure you are doing the pro-choice side great favours with your (ever shifting) position and (strident I said it so it's true) demeanour.

The comment about likes is particularly good. Very Trumpesque. I'm sure you'll get bigly likes too someday.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, you haven't read that right. You appear to have missed the bit where I said that my neighbour never took a penny off my parents. To most people that would imply that my parents offered her money, but she wouldn't take it. Not to you of course, unsurprisingly.

And no, I'm not here lecturing anyone about taking responsibility for their children, I'm here having a discussion, in which you seem desperate to make sure that not just I, but now my parents, are painted out to be terrible people.

I would expect any grown adult would simply laugh at such childish nonsense, as I'm doing now. You'll just have to take my word for that too though.

I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted.

As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.

Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :
[

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stall on there, I don't want to make women do anything. Each and every woman has a mind of their own, and I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves, what is best for themselves, and support them in acting in what they believe is acting in their best interests. To that end, no, I don't believe that just giving anyone money is actually helping them. In case it hasn't been made clear already and as January has been at pains to point out - child benefit of what is it now €140, or a tax free allowance of €30 per month is a mere pittance, as are any of the other welfare payments from the State such as OFPA, DCA, etc, the list goes on. Suffice to say - they don't actually teach anyone that they are perfectly capable of generating and maintaining their own wealth and therefore not being dependent upon the State.

Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either. There are a number of men, albeit thankfully a minority, who claim that because they cannot afford to support their children that they should either be absolved of any financial responsibility, or imagine that the State should provide for their children. They too, should be taught how to generate wealth so that should they ever find themselves in a position where they have fathered a child, they don't immediately assume that responsibility for their child is entirely either the mothers responsibility, or the responsibility of the State.

As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.

And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.

nozzferrahhtoo

volchitsa wrote: »

Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.

I am not sure citations of studies are likely from someone who has expressed the idea that Liberal academia publishes reams of poorly conducted research intended to confirm and promote their own liberal ideologies. For such a person a single anecdote, real or imaginary, trumps 10 citations from various sources.

But provable facts, like those I have cited show things like education in the classroom making real measurable differences outside the classroom, are certainly being offered by many here. Measurable in reductions in things like teen pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.

And these are important facts and studies, not to be dismissed by imagination and assertion. Because as I keep saying on this thread.... as passionate and divisive as the subject of abortion gets we MUST NEVER lose sight of the common ground between us. Which is that as near to 100% of people discussing abortion as makes no difference all want there to be less abortions happening in our world. We just differ in opinion on how to achieve that goal, and I certainly do not think hurdles making it difficult to obtain an abortion is an effective, moral, justifiable or useful method in doing this. So I just do not buy the "Making it illegal reduces abortions" narrative on many levels.

But a lot of the studies are hard to understand. Social sciences are hard to understand. Statistics are hard to understand. Even for those of us working with such things, let alone to the complete lay person to science.

And when someone responds to the claim that education makes real world differences in this context with the notion that a group of girls all got the same education, but some got pregnant and others didn't........ then the extent of the lack of understanding of the lay person becomes quickly apparent.

It is up for us to parse and communicate the science on such things as best we can. And I am more than happy to discuss and break down the studies I cited, or any other of the many studies of education effects on sexual issues with anyone who requires it openly and honestly and does not need to avoid that knowledge by throwing the goal posts around the pitch and even at times changing the shape and purpose of the ball.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Good Man.

You keep going as you are. Sure you are doing the pro-choice side great favours with your (ever shifting) position and (strident I said it so it's true) demeanour.

The comment about likes is particularly good. Very Trumpesque. I'm sure you'll get bigly likes too someday.

this would be the shifting position that doesn't shift? the ultimate impossible miracle.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted.

As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.

Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :
[

As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.

And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.

you can't force people to take your money. if you offer money and they refuse to take it then what do you do?
the neighbours were obviously happy to look after jack when needed and didn't look for money, maybe his parents offered it. maybe they hadn't it to offer.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted.

As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.

You make all these assumptions as though people don't do things for other people simply by way of helping them out, and for no other reason than simply because they can, but that's not, and has never been my reality. There exists plenty of people in this world who do things and help other people out simply because they can, and it's really not as unusual as you make it out to be. It might not be the way you work or what you're used to, but it's the way I work and it's what I'm used to and it's worked out well so far.

Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :

How is that lecturing anyone about needing to take responsibility for their children? That's what you originally claimed I was lecturing people about? I wasn't lecturing anyone. If you chose to take it that way then I will tell you that's your responsibility, not mine.

As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.

I'm not looking to police people's reactions at all, you asked me had you read that right and said you couldn't get your head around it, and I pointed out to you that one possible reason you couldn't get your head around it is because you hadn't read it right.

And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I expect you to react negatively to anything I say. I fully expect if I were to say the sky is blue, you'd be in there like a shot to contradict me. What does bother me though is as I explained to another poster is when you choose to misrepresent what I actually said, when it's written there in front of you.

It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes that gained media attention in the 30 odd years of it's existence, and the only reason they gained media attention is because those cases are thankfully as rare as they are.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes

The "anecdotes" that can actually be shown to be real, relevant, and actually shown to have occurred? As opposed to a system of argumentation based on "I know this person........no honest I do........."?

Anecdote is not evidence generally, but I know which type has value myself. And if we are discussing the implications and effects of text in our constitution, then verifiable anecdotes of people and situations that HAVE actually been affected by that text are far from irrelevant. False equivalence between anecdotes does not take value from one set or add value to the other. The two are not equivalent at all.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You make all these assumptions as though people don't do things for other people simply by way of helping them out, and for no other reason than simply because they can, but that's not, and has never been my reality. There exists plenty of people in this world who do things and help other people out simply because they can, and it's really not as unusual as you make it out to be. It might not be the way you work or what you're used to, but it's the way I work and it's what I'm used to and it's worked out well so far.

"Bringing up" seven children whose parents are working full time hours regularly is not "helping someone out" it's a full time occupation.

Now I'm aware that people tend to ignore the work done by mothers with small children precisely because it's unpaid, but it's taking things to an extreme when neighbours are expected to fill in, unpaid, as well.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is that lecturing anyone about needing to take responsibility for their children? That's what you originally claimed I was lecturing people about? I wasn't lecturing anyone. If you chose to take it that way then I will tell you that's your responsibility, not mine.

Since I've always worked full time except when I was on maternity leave or, very occasionally, unemployed, I don't see how it's my responsibility in any way. I'm just saying how it comes across, as very condescending and generalizing, and actually very dismissive of people whose circumstances you know nothing of.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not looking to police people's reactions at all, you asked me had you read that right and said you couldn't get your head around it, and I pointed out to you that one possible reason you couldn't get your head around it is because you hadn't read it right.

Except I had read it right, your parents actually allowed a neighbour to raise seven of their children while they worked full time and never paid them anything. And you think that's a good thing.

I think it's selfish and arrogant. I'm kind of not surprised TBH.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I expect you to react negatively to anything I say. I fully expect if I were to say the sky is blue, you'd be in there like a shot to contradict me. What does bother me though is as I explained to another poster is when you choose to misrepresent what I actually said, when it's written there in front of you.

Gosh it didn't take you long to change your mind about my posts did it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes that gained media attention in the 30 odd years of it's existence, and the only reason they gained media attention is because those cases are thankfully as rare as they are.

I see this has been answered already, so yeah, genuine incidents are not scientific data, but they are actual verifiable consequences of a law that was intended to prevent abortions but which has not done that.

So even one single serious negative consequence for a woman who was giving birth rather than having an abortion is enough to call into question a law which doesn't do what it was meant to do and does have all sorts of unintended negative consequences.

And there are a lot more than one such incident.

(As an aside, and as others have pointed out, how do you square your current support for retaining the 8th etc with your previously expressed support for abortion to be available right up to due date iirc? Have you changed your mind?)

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

"Bringing up" seven children whose parents are working full time hours regularly is not "helping someone out" it's a full time occupation.

Now I'm aware that people tend to ignore the work done by mothers with small children precisely because it's unpaid, but it's taking things to an extreme when neighbours are expected to fill in, unpaid, as well.

That's how you see it volchista, and that's fine. That's not how I see it, and which of our perspectives do you think I'm likely to lend more weight to? I'll give you a hint - it's not yours.

Since I've always worked full time except when I was on maternity leave or, very occasionally, unemployed, I don't see how it's my responsibility in any way. I'm just saying how it comes across, as very condescending and generalizing, and actually very dismissive of people whose circumstances you know nothing of.

I meant how you choose to react to what I said is your responsibility. It is. It can't be lecturing people, generalising, condescending and dismissive all that the same time and then telling me I'm talking about people whose circumstances I know nothing about. If you choose to take what I said personally when you're aware that the intent of what I said was never directed at you personally, then you don't get to blame me for that. If I'm to take you seriously, then you'll have to behave according to that same standard yourself so I don't get offended. That doesn't seem to have held you back in the slightest :pac:

Except I had read it right, your parents actually allowed a neighbour to raise seven of their children while they worked full time and never paid them anything. And you think that's a good thing.

And you're still not reading it right, and now not only are you not reading it right, but you're assuming things that I never said. Where did I ever say it was a good thing?

I think it's selfish and arrogant. I'm kind of not surprised TBH.

I'm sure you're just as lovely offline too.

Gosh it didn't take you long to change your mind about my posts did it?

I haven't changed my mind? You've still contributed greatly to the discussion, and I wouldn't ever suggest otherwise. We don't always agree, we won't always agree, but you're still invaluable to the discussion for the wealth of information and knowledge you do possess!

I see this has been answered already, so yeah, genuine incidents are not scientific data, but they are actual verifiable consequences of a law that was intended to prevent abortions but which has not done that.

"Not scientific data but..."


I've read all I need to read right there.

So even one single serious negative consequence for a woman who was giving birth rather than having an abortion is enough to call into question a law which doesn't do what it was meant to do and does have all sorts of unintended negative consequences.

And there are a lot more than one such incident.

That's a matter of opinion really as to whether or not the law does what it was intended to do, and whether the cases you claim are the unintended consequences of that law, actually are the unintended consequences of that law. For that of course you're free to abandon scientific data, evidence and so on, and fall back on how you're choosing to interpret a whole range of circumstances through a very limited lens. Well yes, when your methodology is that poor, you're bound to be able to make the evidence fit your hypothesis.

(As an aside, and as others have pointed out, how do you square your current support for retaining the 8th etc with your previously expressed support for abortion to be available right up to due date iirc? Have you changed your mind?)

You weren't paying attention earlier in the thread either then? That doesn't surprise me in the slightest tbh.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

I mean there's no point changing the constitution just because it might be popular, but nice try in twisting my words to mean something other than what it plainly said (I'm guessing pro lifers get classes in that or something).

I didn't twist your words, certainly not any more than was necessary to try and better understand a rather odd thing you said. Note the question mark at the end. No point in quoting you directly if it caused confusion the first time. It being popular to do so can be a very good reason to change the constitution, and is the only prerequisite to doing so.

Exception-based abortion is a complex clinical matter so good luck if you think you can add something that's about complex clinical matters that doesn't actually refer to those matters.

The constitution need only be general, with legislation proposed to deal with the intricacies. Professional opinion can be used to determine legality if desirable.

Just because you think it's possible, doesn't mean it is. Some of us have explained why we don't think it is, so rather than simply repeating yourself, why not point out the flaws in our logic?

Well that's a very defeatist attitude... As above, the constitution need only be general. Laws can be drawn up based on intetpretation of the constitution, and changed if necessary

Well, why not start the ball rolling? Give us a rough idea of text you think can go into the constitution without creating more problems.

Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law. I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law.

None of us here are, but some of us can see the flaws with your suggestion. However you either can't or don't want to, so I guess we'll leave it there until you have something new to add.

sondagefaux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.

They don't do those things because they can buy pills online.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law. I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.

Fiona de Londras would know her way around the Constitution - why don't you have a read of her opinion

While it is quite appropriate for this Committee to be concerned with legal certainty, we must accept that absolute legal certainty is not achievable. Indeed, Ms Justice Laffoy made that point here last week. Thus, rather than try to achieve absolutelegal certainty, the aim should be to create a reasonable level of legal certainty. Thisis one that makes clear the scope of the Oireachtas’ legislative power, although it may still require the exercise of judgement in determining whether a proposed legal
enactment is within that power. It may also be subject to a finding by a Court that thisjudgement was inaccurate, resulting in some or all of a piece of law being struck down. In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty, although in the case of replace much depends on the wording that is proposed....
. Constitutions should enable the organs of the state to govern effectively, i.e. to respond to the real governance needs in society, which shift and change over time, within constitutionally articulated limitations about rights and the separation of powers. They should also enable the state to meet its international human rights law obligations, which we are currently in breach of....

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Opening-Statement-by-Professor-Fiona-De-Londras,-Law-School,-Birmingham-University-270917.pdf

Fiona goes into the pros and cons of it in quite a lot of detail.

Happy reading!

NuMarvel

sondagefaux wrote: »

They don't do those things because they can buy pills online.

To be fair, some women may still be doing these things. One of the witnesses at the Committee on the 8th referred to interviews with women who had abortions in the UK or via pills. Those women spoke about what options they were considering if travel or pills hadn't been accessible.

These include coat hangers, starvation, high doses of vitamin C, strenuous exercise, large quantities of alcohol, scalding water, drinking bleach, throwing themselves downstairs, or running into traffic. Rebecca, who is 39 years old and has two children, explains: “I was walking up to 20km every day. I was doing sit ups, I was doing squats. I was doing anything I could possibly do to make this happen. I don't think I ate for several days because I had read that if you have an extremely low calorie count and you're taking high doses of Vitamin C that can cause a miscarriage. I was actually reading pregnancy sites that warn you not to do things and everything they were warning you not to do was exactly what I was doing; roasting hot baths to the point that I almost scalded myself, and when I think about it I'm an educated woman, do you know, I'm a grown woman. It's just so sad."

I'd find it hard to believe that at least some women, even if only a handful, haven't actually tried these or other methods. Just because One Eye Jack hasn't heard about it is doesn't mean it hasn't happened, especially when women who do talk about it risk a 14 year prison sentence.

As an aside, that witness's statement is well worth reading in it's own right - http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Opening-Statement-by-Professor-Abigail-Aiken,-University-of-Texas.pdf.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

None of us are, but some of us can see the flaws with your suggestion. However you either can't or don't want to, so I guess we'll leave it there until you have something new to add.

If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed. Yes, we will have to leave it there for now, until someone can clarify.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed. Yes, we will have to leave it there for now, until someone can clarify.

^^^^^^^^ Fiona de Londras ^^^^^^ professor of law ^^^^quite a lot of details and clarification ^^^^ linky up there^^^^^she took aaaages writing that. Read books and everything. Be rude not to read her clarification.

Fizzlesque

I have a question that keeps resurfacing in my mind, every time I read threads like this. That question is, why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I don't mean how can life on earth be considered a good thing, because I know it can be good, great, even amazing at times, but it can also be a truly difficult experience some of the time, or all of the time, for some people. To qualify, I'm not saying I don't understand or appreciate that life can be a wonderful experience, but it is, unfortunately, a painful experience for many.

I ask this as someone who continued with an unplanned pregnancy, and relinquished her child to parents that wanted a (second, adopted) child. I read threads like this one in a confused state of mind. There is the part of me that understands how traumatic an unplanned pregnancy can be - I know that feeling of being unsupported and pregnant. Then there is another side of me, the side that hopes my child is happy she was given a chance to live a life on this planet, even though that life wasn't lived with her biological mother.

Although I don't feel the same as this thread's (and similar thread's) pro-life posters, I find myself strangely comforted by their 'life above all else' train of thought. It is for selfish reasons I find comfort in their dogged insistence that life, even in its very early stage, should be given the chance to be born. That selfish reason is that I hope my child prefers the life I gave her, with a family brand new, to not having a life at all.

But, this comes at continued cost to me. Twenty eight years later, I still struggle with the life I now have without the child I gave birth to. I hope she loves being on this planet - this planet that can be as wonderful as it can be horrendous.

I doubt it's necessary for me to outline the pain this life can bring but I suspect that some people don't ever get to see the beauty. I'm lucky, although I feel tremendous emotional pain a lot of the time, I also feel joy and see beauty even though the measures can sometimes be unbalanced.

How do hard-stance pro-life people see this world? How can they be sure that to be given a life on earth is a great gift?

I hope they're right, and to be given a life is better than to not be given a life (on earth -who knows what else is on offer elsewhere?) because something I wasn't prepared for, when choosing to place my child with a new family, was the guilt. Level one guilt being not keeping her with me, but level two guilt (that accumulated over the many years since) is a whole new level for me - the guilt that comes with knowing that this world knows how to deliver pain, and I sent her out there to deal with it alone (by alone, I mean without me). It's crippling sometimes.

To try return from my off-tangent and back to my question: why is it deemed that life on earth is a blessing when life on earth is also almost guaranteed to bring some pain, and in some cases, a lot of pain?

At all costs. Is that really fair?

applehunter

These are the questions that make it such a fascinating discussion.

It questions our whole human structure.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

To be fair, some women may still be doing these things. One of the witnesses at the Committee on the 8th referred to interviews with women who had abortions in the UK or via pills. Those women spoke about what options they were considering if travel or pills hadn't been accessible.

I'd find it hard to believe that at least some women, even if only a handful, haven't actually tried these or other methods. Just because One Eye Jack hasn't heard about it is doesn't mean it hasn't happened, especially when women who do talk about it risk a 14 year prison sentence.

What are we to do on the basis of the imagination of a handful of people saying what stupid and illegal things they might have done? Thankfully, WHO research states that unsafe abortions occur with negligible incidence here, or not at all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

^^^^^^^^ Fiona de Londras ^^^^^^ professor of law ^^^^quite a lot of details and clarification ^^^^ linky up there^^^^^she took aaaages writing that. Read books and everything. Be rude not to read her clarification.

In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty

Great news, thanks.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jack's post is very clear - he is talking about a woman with a crisis pregnancy who goes to a clinic and wants to hear about all her options except abortion.

However, it is patronising of him to imagine that this woman he has imagined cannot just say "no thanks, against my beliefs" when offered such information, instead this anti-abortion pregnant woman must apparently not be tempted lest she eat the forbidden fruit or something like that.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed.

Back in 1983ish, before the 8th was passed, people who knew the law like Peter Sutherland (the Attorney General) and Alan Shatter (then a TD and family lawyer) warned that the wording of the 8th was unclear, would have to be dragged to the Supreme Court for clarification, and had the risk of unintended consequences like making abortion legal in Ireland, the exact opposite of its supporters intention.

Guess what - the experts were right.

Now you are proposing another dogs dinner which the legal experts are warning is a bad idea. Guess what again.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

What are we to do on the basis of the imagination of a handful of people saying what stupid and illegal things they might have done?

You could try believing them for starters.

thee glitz wrote: »

Thankfully, WHO research states that unsafe abortions occur with negligible incidence here, or not at all.

The research carried out or cited by the WHO (eg, here) doesn't provide a rate for individual countries, only regions and sub regions. The closest it comes to Ireland is by providing a rate for the Northern Europe sub region, an area with a population nearly 22 times that of Ireland.

So no, WHO research doesn't state that unsafe abortions occur with negligible incidence here. It says that unsafe abortions occur with negligible or no incidences in areas with the least restrictive abortion laws; a label that can not be applied to Ireland.

ebbsy

It's up to the woman at the end of the day, isn't it ?

Us men ain't the ones who have to carry the baby.

Oh, and I would rather get medical advice off Michael Jackson's doctor than our taoiseach. He brought in medical cards for u6's and pushe'd our system over a cliff. Gob****e.

NuMarvel

ebbsy wrote: »

It's up to the woman at the end of the day, isn't it ?

Us men ain't the ones who have to carry the baby.

The decision is up to the woman at the end of the day.

But it'll be up to men to turn up and vote on the day to make sure a woman can make that decision if she wants to. Because you can be sure that every man who is against it will be there.

Peregrinus

NuMarvel wrote: »

The decision is up to the woman at the end of the day.

But it'll be up to men to turn up and vote on the day to make sure a woman can make that decision if she wants to. Because you can be sure that every man who is against it will be there.

This.

All the heat and light generated around this question has nothing to do with whether, or when, a woman should or should not terminate her pregnancy.

It all has to do with how we as a society should respond to a woman who faces this question. Should we forbid her? Should we permit her? Either way, how should we support her? It's all about what we should do, not what she should do. And "we" includes both men and women.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fizzlesque wrote: »

why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I question that too, with the result the person I question on it simply runs away. Usually running away with cop out canards like the question is " is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.".

The moral superiority of realizing potential life is simply not a given. In fact there is a whole movement called "Anti Natalism" that suggests that it is positively immoral to bring new life into the world.

Now while I do not agree with the views of anti natalism in general, their arguments can not simply be swept under a rug. And their arguments very much call into question the assumption (and with users like eotr the simply outright assertions) that realizing potential life into real life is somehow some kind of moral obligation.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I question that too, with the result the person I question on it simply runs away. Usually running away with cop out canards like the question is " is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.".

The moral superiority of realizing potential life is simply not a given. In fact there is a whole movement called "Anti Natalism" that suggests that it is positively immoral to bring new life into the world.

Now while I do not agree with the views of anti natalism in general, their arguments can not simply be swept under a rug. And their arguments very much call into question the assumption (and with users like eotr the simply outright assertions) that realizing potential life into real life is somehow some kind of moral obligation.

With respect, you're usingd loaded and inaccurate terminology there, which will tend - unintentionally, no doubt - to poison the well.

An embryo isn't potentially alive; it is actually alive. The issue is not whether we should bring new life into the world; it is whether, given that we have already brought new life into the world, that new life makes moral or ethical claims on us and, if so, what the nature and extent of those claims is.

I think arguments that frame this question in terms of a life that is yet to be are based on a premise which is flat-out, demonstrably, objectively false. The pro-choice position deserves better arguments that this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

With respect, you're usingd loaded and inaccurate terminology there, which will tend - unintentionally, no doubt - to poison the well.

An embryo isn't potentially alive; it is actually alive.

Not inaccurate or misleading at all then, as I have been VERY clear in MULTIPLE posts throughout this thread on the contextual differences in the words like "alive" and "life" and so forth. That you have not kept up with that, does not mean the error lies with me.

The term "Human life" has different meanings in different contexts. In terms of pure biological taxonomy it means one thing... which is generally what you are referring to here. In terms of things like rights and philosophy and so forth it more means "personhood". And it is the concepts of "personhood" that I think sets the context in Fizzlesque's post when discussing realizing the potential life of a fetus. I doubt anyone is dumb enough here to think, or think that anyone else thinks, that the fetus is not "alive".

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is not whether we should bring new life into the world; it is whether, given that we have already brought new life into the world, that new life makes moral or ethical claims on us and, if so, what the nature and extent of those claims is.

Exactly what I say throughout this entire thread, and many others. Though I also say it a slightly different way. Which is that given humans are in the business of killing "life" all the time (our paper industry, our farming industry, our meat industry, our medical industry... and so on) what attributes must a "life" form possess before it places moral and ethical concerns on us that other "life" does not?

The only such attributes I have identified or, I hasten to add lest we repeat the content of my previous post which you ignored, have been identified TO me........ happen to be attributes the fetus generally being aborted lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY. To the point they do not just lack those attributes, the lack even many of the pre-requisites for them.

So the moral and ethical concerns you speak of, which people imagine are placed on us, are not grounded in any way anyone has yet shown to me. In over 2 decades of inquiry. Perhaps someone will amble along shorty and finally set that to rights.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think arguments that frame this question in terms of a life that is yet to be are based on a premise which is flat-out, demonstrably, objectively false. The pro-choice position deserves better arguments that this.

Indeed. I just wish someone would come along and make them. Because the pro-choice "arguments" I have been presented so far in 20 years of inquiry into the subject are between paltry (all life must be protected except, you know, the life that isn't and shouldn't) and outright embarrassing (oooo look it's tongue waggles when you play music at it).

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

An embryo isn't potentially alive; it is actually alive. The issue is not whether we should bring new life into the world; it is whether, given that we have already brought new life into the world, that new life makes moral or ethical claims on us and, if so, what the nature and extent of those claims is.

Saying an embryo is alive and human is not enough.

My appendix is alive. It is clearly a human appendix. Is it a human life? Nope.

Calling an embryo "new life" is already loaded language.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Saying an embryo is alive and human is not enough.

My appendix is alive. It is clearly a human appendix. Is it a human life? Nope.

Calling an embryo "new life" is already loaded language.

But it's accurate. Whereas calling it "potential life" is loaded and inaccurate.

I'd rather be advancing an argument which relies on objectively true claims. Wouldn't you?

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's accurate. Whereas calling it "potential life" is loaded and inaccurate.

I'd rather be advancing an argument which relies on objectively true claims. Wouldn't you?

Absolutely, but the accuracy of any term is contextual as well. Context give form to language and meaning. And that can not be ignored either.

So when someone is talking about the "potential life" of a fetus, and generally no one is dumb enough to think the fetus is not biologically alive, context should inform you that their meaning goes beyond mere biology and taxonomy, should it not?

So the phrase "potential life" only becomes "loaded and inaccurate" if you willfully contrive to ignore that context. Contriving to do so would not be useful or, from where I am sitting, have any useful motivation outside of the extremes of linguistic pedantry.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not inaccurate or misleading at all then, as I have been VERY clear in MULTIPLE posts throughout this thread on the contextual differences in the words like "alive" and "life" and so forth. That you have not kept up with that, does not mean the error lies with me.

The problem isn't that I haven't kept up with it, Nozz. It's that you haven't. I just quoted a post from you in which you echoed Fizzlesque's language and referred to carrying a pregnancy to term as "realizing potential life into real life".

Using language like that is handing your pro-life interlocutors a gift on a plate, garnished with parsley. The embryo is real life; it has already been realised. You don't think pro-lifers aren't going to relish suggesting that, if pro-choicers advance arguments which apparently require flat out denial of objective truth, that must be because they don't have any actual sound arguments?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The term "Human life" has different meanings in different contexts. In terms of pure biological taxonomy it means one thing... which is generally what you are referring to here. In terms of things like rights and philosophy and so forth it more means "personhood". And it is the concepts of "personhood" that I think sets the context in Fizzlesque's post when discussing realizing the potential life of a fetus. I doubt anyone is dumb enough here to think, or think that anyone else thinks, that the fetus is not "alive".

No. But they are going to think that you have to say that it's not alive, because if you said that it was not alive in a way that engages our respect, protection, etc, you'd be called upon to justify that claim, and you don't want to be called upon to do that because, in the end, you can only assert it as something you believe; you can't demonstrate it as something objectively true.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. I just wish someone would come along and make them. Because the pro-choice "arguments" I have been presented so far in 20 years of inquiry into the subject are between paltry (all life must be protected except, you know, the life that isn't and shouldn't) and outright embarrassing (oooo look it's tongue waggles when you play music at it).

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or when you say "pro-choice" in that paragraph you actually mean "pro-life".

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Jack's post is very clear - he is talking about a woman with a crisis pregnancy who goes to a clinic and wants to hear about all her options except abortion.

However, it is patronising of him to imagine that this woman he has imagined cannot just say "no thanks, against my beliefs" when offered such information, instead this anti-abortion pregnant woman must apparently not be tempted lest she eat the forbidden fruit or something like that.

I'd love to know the rest of that conversation. Like, after she was told that abortion might be her best bet did she say 'that's not an option' and get other advice?

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's accurate. Whereas calling it "potential life" is loaded and inaccurate.

I'd rather be advancing an argument which relies on objectively true claims. Wouldn't you?

It's living tissue, certainly, but is it alive? In terms of the signifiers of life; growth, respiration, reaction, etc. it ranks lower than an amoeba.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem isn't that I haven't kept up with it, Nozz. It's that you haven't. I just quoted a post from you in which you echoed Fizzlesque's language and referred to carrying a pregnancy to term as "realizing potential life into real life".

Which means I have kept up, you haven't. AGAIN: We all know the entity after conception is "alive". I have, at least, not yet met a person who is not aware of that. So context suggests that when we are talking about realizing the potential life of that entity..... we are NOT talking about what you are.

If Pro-choice people wish to mirror what you are doing here, and feign ignorance of what context informs them is the meaning of any given term, in any given situation then I am happy to call them out on that dishonesty when they employ it. As long as I am clear on my own terms, and what I mean by them, I see no reason to modify my own approach... which is honest....... to pander to theirs....... which is not.

Peregrinus wrote: »

you'd be called upon to justify that claim

If nothing else, I think my posting history shows me to be someone who is happy and open to be calling out to justify my claims, elaborate on my meanings, and generally openly discuss what I mean (and do not mean) by anything I have said. I relish and even worship discourse. If something I do stimulates it then.... well..... yay.

Peregrinus wrote: »

you don't want to be called upon to do that because, in the end, you can only assert it as something you believe; you can't demonstrate it as something objectively true.

Not entirely clear what claim you are talking about in particular. However I do not think anything about rights, morals, ethics, and so forth IS "objectively true". Morality is a subjective realm that appears to only exist in, and because of, humans. There is nothing objectively true about it.

All we can do in moral discourse is show that our subjective positions are not merely arbitrary whims, but are grounded in sensible and rational arguments based on what evidence and data the real world affords us. And I am more than happy to demonstrate the rationale behind how I ground moral and ethical concern while showing such rationality is often absent in many counter claims on where and why we should be grounding it.

So if someone wants to call upon me to offer the rational behind why I think the fetus is "not alive in a way" that warrants affording it moral and ethical concerns......... then the idea that I do not want to be called on it is your idea. It certainly is not mine.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or when you say "pro-choice" in that paragraph you actually mean "pro-life".

Yes my fail. I misread Pro choice as pro life in YOUR post and it went down hill from there. Apologies.

I am not sure what "better arguments" you think the pro choice position deserves. The simple fact for me is that a huge majority of the entire abortion debate boils down to whether the fetus being aborted has rights or not. Specifically the right to life.

And my entire position on that debate is based on noticing that no attribute the fetus generally being aborted has....... are attributes I have seen ANYONE at any time EVER meaningfully, coherently, or successfully use to ground moral and ethical concern.

I therefore simply see no moral or ethical concern with the termination of such a life/entity. It is, at the point of termination, the moral equivalent of an amoeba to me. And "Well people do not share that opinion, so there" tends quite often to be the single rebuttal that conclusion ever attracts.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

It's living tissue, certainly, but is it alive? In terms of the signifiers of life; growth, respiration, reaction, etc. it ranks lower than an amoeba.

Yes, it's alive. It can die; therefore it's alive. And it spontaneously grows and develops in an ordered way. Even if at a particular stage of development it doesn't, e.g., respire, it is actively developing the capacity to respire. And so on.

The only way I can make sense of this is to see the life of any individual as a continuum from conception through growth, complexity, maturity, etc and eventually to decay and death. And the whole point about a continuum is that, well, it continues. We've got a continuing, living individual here. Pro-choice arguments which start out by denying or ignoring this are not going to convince anyone. We need better.

But, if I'm honest, arguments about the definitions of words, even words like "life" and "person", rarely change minds either way. I find arguments which involve characterising the foetus as "not alive" deeply unconvincing, but Nozz obviously feels they carry much weight. Similarly, arguments that the foetus isn't a "person" until it is sentient (or insert any other developmental marker of choice here) don't seem very convincing to me, but Nozz finds them powerful. And Nozz and I are both pro-choice; you can imagine that someone who is pro-life is going to be as unimpressed with Nozz's arguments as he is with pro-life arguments.

The truth is that a pro-choicer will define concepts life "life" and "person" in the way he does precisely because he is a pro-choicer, and the same is true for pro-lifers. Each of them is simply asserting his beliefs in the form of a defintion which assumes the correctness/validity/truth of his beliefs. The definition is obviously not going to appeal to anybody who doesn't already share the underlying beliefs; therefore these definition-based arguments may look powerful and compelling to the people who already agree with you, but they will carry no weight at all with people who don't already agree with you. But it's those people you need to convince if you are actually to get anywhere.

Which is why I think these defintion based arguments are sterile. Ultimately people are simply asserting inconsistent beliefs, neither of which can be demonstrated to have any objective validity. It may be true that, e.g, a foetus does not respire, and that this is an appropriate qualification to statements that it is alive. So what? You may attach great ethical significance to a fully-developed capacity for respiration; I may not. And, as is the nature of ethical beliefs, neither of us can demonstrate our own belief to be objectively correct, or the other's belief to be objectively false. This gets us nowhere.

The only effective pro-choice argument (effective for changing someone's mind, I mean) is one which proceeds from some belief or value that your interlocutor is already committed to, but whose implications in the context of abortion he has not yet worked through. Those are the pro-choice arguments that need to be developed and deployed.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's accurate.

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Calling it "new life" is most of the way to saying a new human life has come into being. But to be a human life, the living thing should be a human being, not an appendix. Is a fertilized cell in a test tube a human being? I certainly don't think so.

Even the 8th amendment does not go so far as to say that the "unborn" is a human being.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

We've got a continuing, living individual here. Pro-choice arguments which start out by denying or ignoring this are not going to convince anyone. We need better.

Then lets find such a person espousing that denial and take care of them. I am all for internal debate against my own "side" as much as against the other. For example I often explain to other pro-choice people why using "rape" as an argument is a bad move.

I see no such person here at this time however. I sure as hell know I am not one. Who exactly is it you have identified as someone who denys or ignores the continuum of life or a human life form?

What I do, and I love viewing things as a continuum myself so I love that you go there as it breaks out of the "box" like thinking most humans seem to employ, is notice that different things happen at different identifiable stages along that continuum.

And often, alas, we use the same word to describe them. The word "life" is similar to words like "Religion" and "Sport" to me. They are umbrella terms that massively change in differing contexts.

But along that continuum thing happen, and come into play, which I think ground moral and ethical concern. But abortion by choice, the near totality of it (96 to 98%) occurs WELL before any event on that continuum that warrants ethical concern coming into play. And that simple fact is the core point of my ENTIRE approach to the abortion debate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if I'm honest, arguments about the definitions of words, even words like "life" and "person", rarely change minds either way.

Absolutely agree. Arguments about the definitions of words rarely (ever?) change minds. However the arguments that DO change minds often require that we be clear from the outset....... and alas repeatedly along the continuum of the conversation........... what we mean by the words we use. Language, for good and bad, is not static. Sometimes it would be nice if it were! But the wealth of human art and literature we would lose to pay for that benefit, is not worth paying.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Similarly, arguments that the foetus isn't a "person" until it is sentient (or insert any other developmental marker of choice here) don't seem very convincing to me, but Nozz finds them powerful.

Well sure I do. If you can build me a model of "personhood" devoid of sentience I would likely chance that stance however. In fact I was only listening to a philosophy podcast last night were they were discussing what is known as the "Philosophical zombie". That is, the idea of a you or a me existing that does all the same things we can do, but somehow the "lights are not on".

If personhood is not, or can not, be grounded in sentience then where is it grounded? What other attributes and pre-requisites do you think are in play when defining "personhood" or identifying an entity that has it?

For example if we created a complete General Artificial Intelligence tomorrow (and many believe we are not far off, though I am skeptical as to the time lines there) what attributes would define.... for want of a better word...... it's humanity. If the lights were not on, if it was not sentient.......... what moral and ethical concern would it hold for us?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that a pro-choicer will define concepts life "life" and "person" in the way he does precisely because he is a pro-choicer, and the same is true for pro-lifers.

Exactly why I wrote the "arbitrary whim" text in the post above this one. If humans are prone to defining terms to fit their own biases, then the only way forward in discourse is to unpack, forcibly if needs be, how they arrived at those definitions.

And through unpacking it we see if someone defined it merely as a whim of bias, or if there is a rational and informed thought process that went behind it. I have been accused before of defining my terms retrospectively to fit my biases. The accusations are false. I approached the abortion debate asking some basic questions, and the answers to those questions led me to the definitions I use. Not the other way around. Questions such as "What are rights" "What is morality" "What are rights and morality FOR" "What is it we actually mediate moral and ethical concern on, and what is it we SHOULD be doing so on" "What attributes do entities we have moral and ethical concern for actually have, that entities without do not" and so forth.

Without that approach, the entire post you just wrote is a very very long way of merely espousing the old adage of "We all have the right to our opinion". An adage that does little but shut down discourse.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may attach great ethical significance to a fully-developed capacity for respiration; I may not.

Same thing again with the "arbitrary whim" stuff I write about above. If one person things respiration is a useful mediation point, and another things sentience is, then the only progress forward is to discuss with them WHY they think so and see if there is a "There there" as they say.

I suspect if you unpack respiration with someone who thinks that is important.......... or the heart beat as that is a MUCH more common one in people against abortion.......... you will find the sound of crickets is about all you get in return. Whereas I can talk at nauseating length about the rational and foundations behind why I point to sentience as the cue.

So it would be an error I trust you will not make to assume some sort of equivalence between the two.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, as is the nature of ethical beliefs, neither of us can demonstrate our own belief to be objectively correct, or the other's belief to be objectively false. This gets us nowhere.

Thankfully, as I said in the post above, no one is suggestion we have/need to. Yay!

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only effective pro-choice argument (effective for changing someone's mind, I mean) is one which proceeds from some belief or value that your interlocutor is already committed to, but whose implications in the context of abortion he has not yet worked through. Those are the pro-choice arguments that need to be developed and deployed.

I have never subscribed to the "right/wrong" approach to changing minds. Rather I think the movement on any given issue, abortion included, should be made up of a diversity of voices......... all talking in parallel about the issues and approaches they know the most about.

My areas is not, for example, law. I am a relative lay man to that area. My area of training, interest, education and qualifications however lie in science, philosophy, religion and education. So I stick to that.

ALL arguments need to be developed and deployed. Not some unison march where we all develop and say the same things. Because a person convinced by one argument, would not be convinced by the others. The diversity of minds out there, requires a diversity in approaches to changing them. And I will stick to what I am good at, and hope you do the same, and together we will influence different people.

And influence, however small, I have. I have been told in public on forums like this, and in private messaging, that I have had effects. Perhaps, if I had not been told that, I would have stopped long ago. So you can blame them for what you have to put up with

Birdie Num Num

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Are you saying that it is not life at all or that it is existing life?

nozzferrahhtoo

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Are you saying that it is not life at all or that it is existing life?

It is alive in the sense of being a distinct biological entity that is.... well.... doing it's thing. Taking in energy and ordering that energy for higher function and so forth.

But when it comes to rights and morals and ethics it is not "Alive" in any meaningful sense that distinguishes it morally from..... say.... an amoeba or an ant or so forth. In fact I would tend to have a tad more moral and ethical concern for an ant than a 12 week gestated fetus.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Calling it "new life" is most of the way to saying a new human life has come into being. But to be a human life, the living thing should be a human being, not an appendix. Is a fertilized cell in a test tube a human being? I certainly don't think so.

Well, I've already flagged the uselessness of arguments about the definitions of words or terms. But, since you ask:

Is the fertilized cell you speak of a fertilised human cell? If so, then we can justify calling whatever it is "human".

Does it exist? If so, we can justify calling it a "being".

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply? But, as we discuss this, what will emerge is something like this: you apply the term "human being" to entities that you consider to have moral claims upon us by virtue of their human characteristics. You don't consider that mere biological humanity, of itself, is enough to engage a degree of moral respect that would prevent us terminating a pregnancy, but you do consider that, say sentience is a characteristic that engages this degree of respect. So if it was human, and existing, and sentient, you'd say, yeah, that's a human being.

But what this boils down to is this; you don't call the entity a "human being" at any stage where you consider that the characteristics it possesses don't give rise to an insurmountable ethical objection to terminating its life. But, if so, then you can't validly argue that we can abort it because it's not a human being; that's just a circular argument.