Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

nozzferrahhtoo

Once again it appears you have opted to not reply to me when I write to you, but to reply to me when I write to someone else instead. It is becoming quite the pattern.

end of the road wrote: »

we have come up with hundreds of reasons.

Well no, you really have not. What you have come up with in conversations with me (at least the ones you have not simply jumped ship from and left) is a single solitary ASSERTION that you refuse to back up in any way. Which is that non-sentient things that could potentially become sentient have a right to become sentient.

That is literally the sole solitary rebuttal you have managed to muster against me. And it is entirely made up, asserted, and not supported by any reason or argument.

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn isn't responsible, it's irresponsible.

To you. But aside from assertion it to be irresponsible you have not actually shown it to be so. This approach of "Argument from assertion" is really intellectually bankrupt alas.

But like it or not the very definition of responsibility, and taking responsibility for a situation in which one finds oneself, is learning all your options and choosing the right one based on all the available arguments. That is what it means to be responsible. That is what it means to be an adult. And someone does not become irresponsible just because their conclusions from that choice differ from what you would want personally.

What YOU would do is not he yard stick or meter by this responsible and irresponsible should be measured.

end of the road wrote: »

most people don't mediate their moral and ethical concern based on an entities capacity for sentience as sentience isn't relevant as if it was then anyone or anything could be killed without reason and without consiquence just because they aren't sentient.

And that is exactly what DOES happen, so you are saying "X cant be so or Y would be so" in a situation where Y actually IS so. Take anti bacterial medicine for example. It kills BILLIONS of non-sentient life all the time. Ever written on paper? A non sentient tree was likely killed to make it. Ever eat meat? Animals with sentience deemed to be much less than our own, and so they have no right to life, were happily killed to feed you that meat.

So welcome to the real world where when you write "if it was then anyone or anything could be killed without reason and without consiquence just because they aren't sentient" you do so in a world where anything CAN be killed, and very very very often IS killed, without reason and without consequence since they aren't sentient.

So you have not rebutted my position, you have just proved my point for me. Well done you.

end of the road wrote: »

your fully sentient Artificial Intelligence is also not relevant to the debate as it's Artificial Intelligence and not real.

What would not be real about it? Sentience is sentience. Just because that sentience is running on a silicon substrate rather than a meat based one, does not magically confer moral uniqueness on it. There is nothing inherently special about meat that makes sentience running on that platform special. Carbon is no more special than silicon. And if we met a silicon based life form from another planet (which has oft been postulated in biology as it happens) it's sentience would be every bit as valid as ours.

It is solely another of your empty and not actually argued assumptions and assertions that there would be any difference. What EXACTLY would not be real about it????

end of the road wrote: »

the fetus is becoming sentient before 12 weeks

There is nothing up to and including week 12 going on in a fetus that links with sentience. The simply fact is it is NOT sentient at that stage. And not only is it not, but it even lacks the known pre-requisites to be. A common house fly is more sentient than a 12 week fetus. And people happily kill them ALL the time. Many of them were probably killed by humans in the time it took me to write this post.

end of the road wrote: »

it's only dragged in as an argument as a last resort because the other arguments don't stack up, but this argument doesn't stack up either. the fact it's a human being is enough for ethical, moral, and legal concern.

Except you are straw manning now as I have never brought it in as an argument of last resort because other arguments have failed. It has always been, and continues to be, the FIRST and pretty much ONLY argument I have brought in. I have never brought any in that have not stacked up before it. So you are simply not being honest here. Again.

But there is nothing about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. Your argument is circular. You want it to have rights because it is human. You want "human" to be important because you want it to have rights. The perfect circle. But there is a reason circular arguments are considered on the list of fallacies.

The simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, especially in a way much flora and fauna does not, that results in a list of attributes. And the attributes on that list are EXACTLY the attributes the fetus lacks.

end of the road wrote: »

you have been given plenty of reasons why your sentience based argument is a non-runner

No. I really have not. Least of all from you. You have thrown a few assertions at me on the subject in the past. But pretty much every time I rebutted those assertions you simply dropped out of the conversation entirely and ignored the posts..... waited a few days..... then popped back up repeating the assertions rebutted in the posts you dodged.

NO ONE on this forum has offered an actual argument against the arguments I have put forward about what morality and ethics is, where it comes from, what it is in the business of doing, and to what (and why) we assign it. As I said at the start of this post the only thing you have done is invent, purely by assertion, a concept of "a right to become sentient". But alas any attempts to get you to validate that reasoning have resulted in your instantly heading for the hills and the conversation ending.

end of the road wrote: »

no some have come to decide when and where human life is important only where it suits them.

Perhaps "some" have but I have not met any such people. If you meet any, then take it up with them. They have nothing to do with me. The rest of us, myself included, however do not simply scream "Human" as if "Human" is by default important. Rather we have refined our philosophy and reasoning on the subject to ask WHAT is it specifically that makes Humans, or any other particular species or life form or entity, important morally or ethically. What attributes, rather than what taxonomy chosen arbitrarily or from hubris alone, actually give a coherent basis for affording moral and ethical concern to an entity.

And a list of such attributes can be coherently offered, discussed, and defended. As I have done, while you have not. And they are, as I say, precisely that attributes the fetus lacks at the relevant stages. As such I see no basis to have moral and ethical concern towards such a fetus at those stages. I see more basis for having concern for the common house fly in fact.

end of the road wrote: »

a larg number of us on the other hand understand that the life of the human being is important from implantation to death

Except you have offered no such understanding. You have merely asserted it. Again. And again. And again. Nothing more. To suggest it is not an assertion but an "understanding" would require you offer the reasoning behind it. Which is precisely what you refuse to do. Every. Single. Time.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again it appears you have opted to not reply to me when I write to you, but to reply to me when I write to someone else instead. It is becoming quite the pattern.



Well no, you really have not. What you have come up with in conversations with me (at least the ones you have not simply jumped ship from and left) is a single solitary ASSERTION that you refuse to back up in any way. Which is that non-sentient things that could potentially become sentient have a right to become sentient.

That is literally the sole solitary rebuttal you have managed to muster against me. And it is entirely made up, asserted, and not supported by any reason or argument.



To you. But aside from assertion it to be irresponsible you have not actually shown it to be so. This approach of "Argument from assertion" is really intellectually bankrupt alas.

But like it or not the very definition of responsibility, and taking responsibility for a situation in which one finds oneself, is learning all your options and choosing the right one based on all the available arguments. That is what it means to be responsible. That is what it means to be an adult. And someone does not become irresponsible just because their conclusions from that choice differ from what you would want personally.

What YOU would do is not he yard stick or meter by this responsible and irresponsible should be measured.



And that is exactly what DOES happen, so you are saying "X cant be so or Y would be so" in a situation where Y actually IS so. Take anti bacterial medicine for example. It kills BILLIONS of non-sentient life all the time. Ever written on paper? A non sentient tree was likely killed to make it. Ever eat meat? Animals with sentience deemed to be much less than our own, and so they have no right to life, were happily killed to feed you that meat.

So welcome to the real world where when you write "if it was then anyone or anything could be killed without reason and without consiquence just because they aren't sentient" you do so in a world where anything CAN be killed, and very very very often IS killed, without reason and without consequence since they aren't sentient.

So you have not rebutted my position, you have just proved my point for me. Well done you.



What would not be real about it? Sentience is sentience. Just because that sentience is running on a silicon substrate rather than a meat based one, does not magically confer moral uniqueness on it. There is nothing inherently special about meat that makes sentience running on that platform special. Carbon is no more special than silicon. And if we met a silicon based life form from another planet (which has oft been postulated in biology as it happens) it's sentience would be every bit as valid as ours.

It is solely another of your empty and not actually argued assumptions and assertions that there would be any difference. What EXACTLY would not be real about it????



There is nothing up to and including week 12 going on in a fetus that links with sentience. The simply fact is it is NOT sentient at that stage. And not only is it not, but it even lacks the known pre-requisites to be. A common house fly is more sentient than a 12 week fetus. And people happily kill them ALL the time. Many of them were probably killed by humans in the time it took me to write this post.



Except you are straw manning now as I have never brought it in as an argument of last resort because other arguments have failed. It has always been, and continues to be, the FIRST and pretty much ONLY argument I have brought in. I have never brought any in that have not stacked up before it. So you are simply not being honest here. Again.

But there is nothing about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. Your argument is circular. You want it to have rights because it is human. You want "human" to be important because you want it to have rights. The perfect circle. But there is a reason circular arguments are considered on the list of fallacies.

The simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, especially in a way much flora and fauna does not, that results in a list of attributes. And the attributes on that list are EXACTLY the attributes the fetus lacks.



No. I really have not. Least of all from you. You have thrown a few assertions at me on the subject in the past. But pretty much every time I rebutted those assertions you simply dropped out of the conversation entirely and ignored the posts..... waited a few days..... then popped back up repeating the assertions rebutted in the posts you dodged.

NO ONE on this forum has offered an actual argument against the arguments I have put forward about what morality and ethics is, where it comes from, what it is in the business of doing, and to what (and why) we assign it. As I said at the start of this post the only thing you have done is invent, purely by assertion, a concept of "a right to become sentient". But alas any attempts to get you to validate that reasoning have resulted in your instantly heading for the hills and the conversation ending.



Perhaps "some" have but I have not met any such people. If you meet any, then take it up with them. They have nothing to do with me. The rest of us, myself included, however do not simply scream "Human" as if "Human" is by default important. Rather we have refined our philosophy and reasoning on the subject to ask WHAT is it specifically that makes Humans, or any other particular species or life form or entity, important morally or ethically. What attributes, rather than what taxonomy chosen arbitrarily or from hubris alone, actually give a coherent basis for affording moral and ethical concern to an entity.

And a list of such attributes can be coherently offered, discussed, and defended. As I have done, while you have not. And they are, as I say, precisely that attributes the fetus lacks at the relevant stages. As such I see no basis to have moral and ethical concern towards such a fetus at those stages. I see more basis for having concern for the common house fly in fact.



Except you have offered no such understanding. You have merely asserted it. Again. And again. And again. Nothing more. To suggest it is not an assertion but an "understanding" would require you offer the reasoning behind it. Which is precisely what you refuse to do. Every. Single. Time.

many of us have given you plenty of reasons, as why the unborn are human beings and cannot be allowed to be killed. killing the unborn is irresponsible outside medical necessity, to anyone who does strive for the ultimate humanitarian society, again you have been given plenty of reasons across a number of threads as to why. i have disproved your points and rebutted your arguments across multiple threads. as i said, your fully sentient Artificial Intelligence is also not relevant to the debate as it's Artificial Intelligence and not real. the fetus being human means it deserves moral legal and ethical concern, to protect it from being killed and to insure it's right to life is upheld as much as is practical, the position the irish state takes and which does work. what atributes a fetus lacks isn't relevant as it's still a human being and a billion times more important then flora and fauna. there is no good reason outside medical necessity to allow the killing of the unborn within the irish state.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

many of us have given you plenty of reasons, as why the unborn are human beings and cannot be allowed to be killed. killing the unborn is irresponsible outside medical necessity, to anyone who does strive for the ultimate humanitarian society, again you have been given plenty of reasons across a number of threads as to why. i have disproved your points and rebutted your arguments across multiple threads. as i said, your fully sentient Artificial Intelligence is also not relevant to the debate as it's Artificial Intelligence and not real. the fetus being human means it deserves moral legal and ethical concern, to protect it from being killed and to insure it's right to life is upheld as much as is practical, the position the irish state takes and which does work. what atributes a fetus lacks isn't relevant as it's still a human being and a billion times more important then flora and fauna. there is no good reason outside medical necessity to allow the killing of the unborn within the irish state.

How do you reconcile this with your view that women should not be imprisoned for obtaining an abortion in the UK?

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

How do you reconcile this with your view that women should not be imprisoned for obtaining an abortion in the UK?

i reconcile it via the reality is that it wouldn't be practical to get sufficient evidence to insure a conviction so that a woman who procures an abortion abroad could be imprisoned. + abortion is legal abroad.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

i reconcile it via the reality is that it wouldn't be practical to get sufficient evidence to insure a conviction so that a woman who procures an abortion abroad could be imprisoned. + abortion is legal abroad.

So why not imprison women who take an abortion pill/attempt to import it into the country. I do not see how you throw up your hands and say "it's impossible to regulate this" when there are clearly methods of doing it, then at the same time say that the position that the irish state is taking is working.

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

So why not imprison women who take an abortion pill/attempt to import it into the country. I do not see how you throw up your hands and say "it's impossible to regulate this" when there are clearly methods of doing it, then at the same time say that the position that the irish state is taking is working.

you would be best asking that question to the government as i don't make the laws or enforce them.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

you would be best asking that question to the government as i don't make the laws or enforce them.

The question has been asked, and the answer is the 12 week limit. You just don't seem to accept that answer.

SuperSean11

end of the road wrote: »

you would be best asking that question to the government as i don't make the laws or enforce them.

Thank god

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

The question has been asked, and the answer is the 12 week limit. You just don't seem to accept that answer.

i don't think that is the reason.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

So there is no "development" between zygote and blastocyst? But when a blastocyst attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, suddenly it's a human being?

You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?

I'd say its more that one is tapped into life support, and one is not. The are both human, but one has its whole life ahead of it, and one has not yet reached the point where you can say that.
If it fails to implant, its in a similar position to a FFA condition, ie doomed, even without any medical interventions.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

many of us have given you plenty of reasons, as why the unborn are human beings and cannot be allowed to be killed.

You said that in the previous post and I rebutted it. Merely repeating it does not make my rebuttals go away. You have not offered ANY such reasons, let alone plenty, other than the one single reason I mentioned. That of inventing a "right to become sentient" which you asserted in a couple of threads before simply running away from the conversation when it was challenged.

Your entire approach to this conversation has been to ignore rebuttals and then merely instantly repeat the claim that was rebutted.

end of the road wrote: »

killing the unborn is irresponsible outside medical necessity, to anyone who does strive for the ultimate humanitarian society

And yet I DO strive towards such a society and I do not find it to be irresponsible. So the evidence that your "to anyone" comment is simply false is.... well....me.

Your comment is as useless as saying "There is no such thing as people with one armed men" TO a one armed man. You are basically sitting there telling me I do not exist. But I do.

end of the road wrote: »

i have disproved your points and rebutted your arguments across multiple threads.

No, you have done no such thing. You have run away from the conversation over multiple threads, and left numerous posts from me unanswered and unchallenged.

But you have not once rebutted my arguments. You have merely asserted their opposite. I present all the arguments as to not just THAT sentience is the core of the argument but WHY it is. And all you ever do is say "No it isn't" and then run away.

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, your fully sentient Artificial Intelligence is also not relevant to the debate as it's Artificial Intelligence and not real.

See? Same thing again! You just repeated the thing I rebutted. You ignored my counter points. You ignored the questions I asked WHILE making those counter points. And you merely repeat the assertion. Nothing more.

So let me merely repeat the text you ignored/dodged:

What would not be real about it? Sentience is sentience. Just because that sentience is running on a silicon substrate rather than a meat based one, does not magically confer moral uniqueness on it. There is nothing inherently special about meat that makes sentience running on that platform special. Carbon is no more special than silicon. And if we met a silicon based life form from another planet (which has oft been postulated in biology as it happens) it's sentience would be every bit as valid as ours.

It is solely another of your empty and not actually argued assumptions and assertions that there would be any difference. What EXACTLY would not be real about it????

end of the road wrote: »

the fetus being human means it deserves moral legal and ethical concern

And AGAIN You just repeat what I rebutted without reference to my points or engagement with the discussion. You really do appear to think that repeating the same points over and over again, even when rebutted, is how "debate" works. It is not. So once again let me repeat the bits you ignored:

But there is nothing about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. Your argument is circular. You want it to have rights because it is human. You want "human" to be important because you want it to have rights. The perfect circle. But there is a reason circular arguments are considered on the list of fallacies.

The simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, especially in a way much flora and fauna does not, that results in a list of attributes. And the attributes on that list are EXACTLY the attributes the fetus lacks.

end of the road wrote: »

to protect it from being killed and to insure it's right to life

A right to life you merely assume it should have. But you have given no reasoning or arguments as to why it should. You merely shout "Human" at the issue over and over without engaging with the conversation being had with you.

Calling it "human" just begs the question and kicks the can down the road without answering the challenge. What attributes specifically make "Humans" worthy of a right to life.

It seems the best answer you can give is "Human have rights because humans have rights" essentially. As I said, circular argument fallacy all the way down.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You said that in the previous post and I rebutted it. Merely repeating it does not make my rebuttals go away. You have not offered ANY such reasons, let alone plenty, other than the one single reason I mentioned. That of inventing a "right to become sentient" which you asserted in a couple of threads before simply running away from the conversation when it was challenged.

Your entire approach to this conversation has been to ignore rebuttals and then merely instantly repeat the claim that was rebutted.



And yet I DO strive towards such a society and I do not find it to be irresponsible. So the evidence that your "to anyone" comment is simply false is.... well....me.

Your comment is as useless as saying "There is no such thing as people with one armed men" TO a one armed man. You are basically sitting there telling me I do not exist. But I do.



No, you have done no such thing. You have run away from the conversation over multiple threads, and left numerous posts from me unanswered and unchallenged.

But you have not once rebutted my arguments. You have merely asserted their opposite. I present all the arguments as to not just THAT sentience is the core of the argument but WHY it is. And all you ever do is say "No it isn't" and then run away.



See? Same thing again! You just repeated the thing I rebutted. You ignored my counter points. You ignored the questions I asked WHILE making those counter points. And you merely repeat the assertion. Nothing more.

So let me merely repeat the text you ignored/dodged:

What would not be real about it? Sentience is sentience. Just because that sentience is running on a silicon substrate rather than a meat based one, does not magically confer moral uniqueness on it. There is nothing inherently special about meat that makes sentience running on that platform special. Carbon is no more special than silicon. And if we met a silicon based life form from another planet (which has oft been postulated in biology as it happens) it's sentience would be every bit as valid as ours.

It is solely another of your empty and not actually argued assumptions and assertions that there would be any difference. What EXACTLY would not be real about it????



And AGAIN You just repeat what I rebutted without reference to my points or engagement with the discussion. You really do appear to think that repeating the same points over and over again, even when rebutted, is how "debate" works. It is not. So once again let me repeat the bits you ignored:

But there is nothing about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. Your argument is circular. You want it to have rights because it is human. You want "human" to be important because you want it to have rights. The perfect circle. But there is a reason circular arguments are considered on the list of fallacies.

The simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, especially in a way much flora and fauna does not, that results in a list of attributes. And the attributes on that list are EXACTLY the attributes the fetus lacks.



A right to life you merely assume it should have. But you have given no reasoning or arguments as to why it should. You merely shout "Human" at the issue over and over without engaging with the conversation being had with you.

Calling it "human" just begs the question and kicks the can down the road without answering the challenge. What attributes specifically make "Humans" worthy of a right to life.

It seems the best answer you can give is "Human have rights because humans have rights" essentially. As I said, circular argument fallacy all the way down.

you didn't rebut it, you weren't able to. i have given you plenty of reasons across a number of threads, but as you support the availability of abortion on demand, it would be impossible for you to see the reality as otherwise it would show what we already know, that there is no argument for abortion on demand. lifestyle/convenience is not an argument for it.
people who want the availability of being able to kill others don't strive for the same society as those of us who believe there are very few reasons that one should be able to kill, and those reasons would be extreme reasons where there is no other option. so killing the unborn outside medical necessity is irresponsible. sentience is only relevant to a meat platform. sentience runnong on AI is artificial sentience so is of no comparison or relevance to real sentience.
there is everything about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. the simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, that results in a list of many many things which a fetus will and won't have. what the fetus doesn't have doesn't make it less human as it's developing, which is enough to insure it cannot be killed and it's right to life upheld as much as is practical, outside medical necessity.

SusieBlue

Yes EOTR, you are bang on, we are pro choice beceause we are all blood thirsty lunatics whose goal in life is to ‘strive to kill others’.

Jesus wept.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes EOTR, you are bang on, we are pro choice beceause we are all blood thirsty lunatics whose goal in life is to ‘strive to kill others’.

Jesus wept.

jesus wept indeed as i never made such a statement.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I'd say its more that one is tapped into life support, and one is not. The are both human, but one has its whole life ahead of it, and one has not yet reached the point where you can say that.

That's no more true of one than the other.

If it fails to implant, its in a similar position to a FFA condition, ie doomed, even without any medical interventions.

Sure, but we're not discussing blastocysts that have failed to implant; we're talking about blastocysts that have yet to implant. Apparently the moment of implantation has some mystical significance that makes that blastocysts a human being, where a few moments before it wasn't one.

That's an arbitrary distinction. It's chosen because it justifies the grudging acceptance of the morning-after pill, while still allowing total opposition to abortion. It's nothing more than sophistry.

Now, you could argue that the 12-week limit is equally arbitrary, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But the difference is that the 12-week limit at least allows a woman a degree of bodily integrity, while the arbitrary declaration of humanity from the moment of implantation is designed specifically to deny her that choice.

A declaration of personhood from the moment of conception is more intellectually honest. It's still nonsense, of course.

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an arbitrary distinction. It's chosen because it justifies the grudging acceptance of the morning-after pill, while still allowing total opposition to abortion. It's nothing more than sophistry.

that maybe the case for some people but certainly not me. there is no grudging acceptance of the morning after pill, but a full acceptance of it. i have no issue with it what soever. it isn't abortion.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, you could argue that the 12-week limit is equally arbitrary, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But the difference is that the 12-week limit at least allows a woman a degree of bodily integrity, while the arbitrary declaration of humanity from the moment of implantation is designed specifically to deny her that choice.

it's actually not, but if we were to go with the view that it is, then there would still be nothing wrong with denying her the choice of killing the unborn outside medical necessity. we prevent her from killing her newborn after all. we are all denied choices where such will harm others, our bodily integrity and autonomy is restricted to an extent in that sense.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

that maybe the case for some people but certainly not me. there is no grudging acceptance of the morning after pill, but a full acceptance of it. i have no issue with it what soever. it isn't abortion.

That's because you've arrived at a completely arbitrary distinction to justify your acceptance of it. You've decided that a blastocyst that hasn't yet attached to the uterus isn't a person and is deserving of absolutely no rights whatsoever, and that - possibly seconds later - once it has implanted in the uterus it's a human being that's fully deserving of a right to life.

It's the same blastocyst, but one moment it's a person and the next it's not. That makes no sense to me.

And, you know what: it doesn't have to make sense to me. If that's where you personally want to decide to draw the line between it being OK to kill a blastocyst or not, that's fine. That can inform whatever decisions you choose to make inside your own uterus.

It's when you announce that that completely arbitrary distinction should deprive other people of their right to access reproductive healthcare that we have a problem.

it's actually not, but if we were to go with the view that it is, then there would still be nothing wrong with denying her the choice of killing the unborn outside medical necessity.

That's only true if you believe that your personal morality should inform the law of the land. "Killing the unborn" is the sort of completely unhelpful rhetoric that has no place in this discussion, especially from someone who has no qualms about killing the unborn who haven't reached the stage of implantation.

If someone who believed in personhood from conception described your views on the morning-after pill as being tantamount to encouraging murder, how would you respond? If they demanded that the morning-after pill be banned on the grounds that it was "killing the unborn", what makes your view any more valid than theirs?

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's the same blastocyst, but one moment it's a person and the next it's not. That makes no sense to me.

And, you know what: it doesn't have to make sense to me. If that's where you personally want to decide to draw the line between it being OK to kill a blastocyst or not, that's fine.

Nah, we all know where the prolifers got this idea, and it wasn't by a careful consideration of the facts of biology.

It is a complete accident, a result of the combination of the badly worded 8th amendment and a decision by the courts in a 2009 case about IVF embryos.

But now they have to pretend it was their idea all along.

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's because you've arrived at a completely arbitrary distinction to justify your acceptance of it. You've decided that a blastocyst that hasn't yet attached to the uterus isn't a person and is deserving of absolutely no rights whatsoever, and that - possibly seconds later - once it has implanted in the uterus it's a human being that's fully deserving of a right to life.

It's the same blastocyst, but one moment it's a person and the next it's not. That makes no sense to me.

i never stated it was a person. i don't believe personhood begins until the fetus starts making movement. however i do believe it is a human being once it begins to develop. personhood and human being while interlinked aren't the one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And, you know what: it doesn't have to make sense to me. If that's where you personally want to decide to draw the line between it being OK to kill a blastocyst or not, that's fine. That can inform whatever decisions you choose to make inside your own uterus.

It's when you announce that that completely arbitrary distinction should deprive other people of their right to access reproductive healthcare that we have a problem.

oh but we don't have a problem, because we deprive people of all sorts where allowing them to have it will cause harm or death to others. abortion is no different and is and shouldn't be anything special that deserves exemption.
realistically, killing the unborn outside medical necessity isn't reproductive health care, but an extreme form of contraception.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's only true if you believe that your personal morality should inform the law of the land.

morality forms the law though. some people think a lot of things we find unacceptible are okay, but the law doesn't allow it and rightly so.

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Killing the unborn" is the sort of completely unhelpful rhetoric that has no place in this discussion, especially from someone who has no qualms about killing the unborn who haven't reached the stage of implantation.

except it's not rhetoric but reality. abortion is killing the unborn, there is no 2 ways about it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If someone who believed in personhood from conception described your views on the morning-after pill as being tantamount to encouraging murder, how would you respond? If they demanded that the morning-after pill be banned on the grounds that it was "killing the unborn", what makes your view any more valid than theirs?

if they can convince me that their argument is worth agreeing with then i'd consider it. however so far they haven't been able to do that. just like the pro-choice have not been able to put forward a good argument as to why abortion on demand, especially tax payer funded, should be availible in ireland. from what i can see their arguments are mostly slogans which are easily debunked and which don't stand up to scruteny.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's no more true of one than the other. Sure, but we're not discussing blastocysts that have failed to implant; we're talking about blastocysts that have yet to implant. Apparently the moment of implantation has some mystical significance that makes that blastocysts a human being, where a few moments before it wasn't one.

That's an arbitrary distinction. It's chosen because it justifies the grudging acceptance of the morning-after pill, while still allowing total opposition to abortion. It's nothing more than sophistry.

Now, you could argue that the 12-week limit is equally arbitrary, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But the difference is that the 12-week limit at least allows a woman a degree of bodily integrity, while the arbitrary declaration of humanity from the moment of implantation is designed specifically to deny her that choice.

A declaration of personhood from the moment of conception is more intellectually honest. It's still nonsense, of course.

Fair points. However implantation is still a significant milestone. Just as significant, or just as arbitrary, as being at one end, or the other of the birth canal after the 40 weeks. Or does taking the first breath of air have some mystical significance? Because that's when a person's human rights will start if this referendum passes. Not at 12 weeks, only at birth. The 8th amendment is what currently protects the unborn up to birth.

The 12 week thing is completely separate. Its a party political promise. But supposing FG keep that promise, and imagine for a minute that no future govt. would ever want to modify their legislation.
A 12 week limit for "no questions asked" abortion means having an unwanted pregnancy for 3 months, and doing nothing about it. IMO taking the morning after pill is a reasonable action. Taking no action for 3 months and then aborting a human entity at that stage of development is unreasonable.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The 8th amendment is what currently protects the unborn up to birth.

And when the 8th amendment is repealed, medical ethics will protect the unborn, which is as it should be.

Taking no action for 3 months and then aborting a human entity at that stage of development is unreasonable.

The good news is that nobody is forcing you to do anything unreasonable. If you don't want to have an abortion at 12 weeks because you feel it's unreasonable, you don't have to. You'll have a choice. Choice is good.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is killing the unborn, there is no 2 ways about it.

But the MAP isn't "killing the unborn", apparently, because you've carefully crafted a definition of "unborn" to make your argument work. A blastocyst that hasn't yet implanted isn't "unborn", but a blastocyst that has implanted is.

If that makes sense to you, fair enough, but it doesn't seem like a sound basis on which to make national policy around reproductive healthcare.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

And when the 8th amendment is repealed, medical ethics will protect the unborn, which is as it should be.

I didn't realise that was going into the Constitution?

Or do you mean it's like a mission statement or something, that will be framed and hung on the wall in the abortion clinic?

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

And when the 8th amendment is repealed, medical ethics will protect the unborn, which is as it should be.

it shouldn't be as it will not protect the unborn to the standard currently existing and we can't rely on ethics alone to protect us. we need the law and the constitution as well.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The good news is that nobody is forcing you to do anything unreasonable. If you don't want to have an abortion at 12 weeks because you feel it's unreasonable, you don't have to. You'll have a choice. Choice is good.

not when it's at the expence of others. when choice harms others then it has to be removed or restricted. the good news is that if we were to remove all the laws tomorrow, one would have the choice not to take part in the acts that were formerly illegal, nobody would force us to commit said acts. however as many of those acts which are illegal cause harm to others, we cannot remove the laws which prohibit them. abortion on demand is the same, it cannot be allowed as it causes the killing of the unborn.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I didn't realise that was going into the Constitution?

It's not. Somehow, by some bizarre mechanism beyond human ken, medical professionals have ethics that aren't enforced by the Constitution.

Or do you mean it's like a mission statement or something, that will be framed and hung on the wall in the abortion clinic?

Maybe you should go talk to a doctor about how ethics work.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

you didn't rebut it, you weren't able to.

Well in fact I did, but since you consistently ignored and did not reply to any of those posts you are in no position to dictate what was or was not in them. This is the problem with your approach to this conversation. You ignore the posts that rebut yours, then you simply pop up again later pretending you were never rebutted.

This have your cake and eat it approach to debate is far from honest, yet you persist in it all the same. Which serves me well so I choose to keep you talking so you do it more.

end of the road wrote: »

i have given you plenty of reasons across a number of threads

You have given a few assertions, not reasons, and then refused to back those assertions up. Like your assertion of the existence of a "right to become sentient" which you appear to have invented out of thin air, and have since refused to entertain ANY debate or discussion on. I have systematically rebutted the assertions you have offered on those threads. However rather than simply say over and over again "I gave reasons on other threads" why not repeat those reasons here? After all reference to other threads is a little bit unfair on everyone, given you have been banned from some of those other threads too for not substantiating your positions. So I can not go there to discuss the reasons you claim to have offered there. So offer them here.

So tell me again what the reasons are, and what argument you can offer for those reasons so they are not merely assertions. Again. Because for all the claims you have offered them, I simply do not recall seeing them.

end of the road wrote: »

, but as you support the availability of abortion on demand, it would be impossible for you to see the reality as otherwise

So ad hominem is your approach now? Rather than give arguments for your position, when asked, you simply invent reasons that I could never understand those arguments. You invent a bias for me, and use that invention as a cop out for actually arguing your case. But ad hominem is on the fallacy list for a reason. Because, it is a fallacy.

end of the road wrote: »

lifestyle/convenience is not an argument for it.

Then take it up with someone who HAS presented that as a reason for it. However since none of my arguments about abortion are even REMOTELY about lifestyle or convenience it is unclear why you bring it up here.

end of the road wrote: »

sentience is only relevant to a meat platform. sentience runnong on AI is artificial sentience so is of no comparison or relevance to real sentience. there is everything about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern.

Three assertions, but as per your usual MO no substantiation for any of them. WHY is it only relevant running on meat? WHY is any other kind "not real"? And WHY does "Human Being" as mere words confer a basis for moral and ethical concern?

Do you have anything but assertion, or do you plan at some point for the first time ever to back one of them up?

Sweg

Nihilists love the idea of full, unrestricted access to abortion, because it would mean that people can act without having to worry about the consequence.

volchitsa

Sweg wrote: »

Nihilists love the idea of full, unrestricted access to abortion, because it would mean that people can act without having to worry about the consequence.

An abortion is a consequence, though.

What you're actually proposing is weaponizing children to punish "nihilists" for their acts. Yeah that sounds like a really caring society. Not.

Give me those nihilists every time, I say.

Sweg

volchitsa wrote: »

Weaponizing children to punish "nihilists" for their acts. Yeah that sounds like a really caring society. Not.

Give me those nihilists every time, I say.

Your actions have consequences, deal with them.

volchitsa

Sweg wrote: »

Your actions have consequences, deal with them.

An abortion is a consequence. That is a perfectly reasonable way of "dealing with them".

Bringing an unwanted child into the world so as to punish someone for having sex is not a reasonable course of action IMO.

Zubeneschamali

Sweg wrote: »

Your actions have consequences, deal with them.

Ryanair ticket and an appointment, job done.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

An abortion is a consequence. That is a perfectly reasonable way of "dealing with them".

Bringing an unwanted child into the world so as to punish someone for having sex is not a reasonable course of action IMO.

it's really not. it's killing other human beings for no good reason. unless it's for a genuine medical necessity of course.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ryanair ticket and an appointment, job done.

if someone really wants it that badly, yes . as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it's really not. it's killing other human beings for no good reason. unless it's for a genuine medical necessity of course.



if someone really wants it that badly, yes . as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

No human being is killed

Are you mistaking a discussion on abortion for something else or do you wish to choose accurate terms perhaps

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

No human being is killed

Are you mistaking a discussion on abortion for something else or do you wish to choose accurate terms perhaps

a human being is killed. the argument you are likely trying to have is about personhood. human being and personhood aren't mutually exclusive.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

a human being is killed. the argument you are likely trying to have is about personhood. human being and personhood aren't mutually exclusive.

No the argument you are trying to pretend isn't the issue is whether a foetus is human.

To continually post on this topic while stating your opinion on the matter as fact is typical but lamentably transparent

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

No the argument you are trying to pretend isn't the issue is whether a foetus is human.

i don't need to pretend it isn't an issue because it isn't an issue. there is no disagreement that i can see from expertese that a fetus is a human being. it's only on discussion boards that people are denying that it's a human being.
so again, the argument you are trying to have is about personhood, for which there are many different viewpoints as to when that begins.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i don't need to pretend it isn't an issue because it isn't an issue. there is no disagreement that i can see from expertese that a fetus is a human being. it's only on discussion boards that people are denying that it's a human being.
so again, the argument you are trying to have is about personhood, for which there are many different viewpoints as to when that begins.

What expertise are you talking about here?

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

it's really not. it's killing other human beings for no good reason. unless it's for a genuine medical necessity of course.



if someone really wants it that badly, yes . as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

So you are saying that we should allow people to kill other human beings if they want to do it "enough". What is "enough" then?

Why is buying a cheap air ticket and taking a couple of days off work evidence "enough" but being a 17 year old asylum seeker who is in deep distress not "enough"? Or do individual women not matter as long as most women can travel, thus preventing the pressure of dead women in Ireland from building up and causing public disquiet?

And does this "wanting something enough" also apply to other acts with 10+ years prison associated? Wanting to take a 12 year old to Thailand to abuse her? The system works well for those who wish to take that route, right?

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

Except for women too poor to travel, women in prison, already in hospital, in Direct Provision with a visa that doesn't allow travel, under age, in an abusive relationship with a partner who will not allow travel or even enough cash to run for it, etc. etc.

But who cares about those women: the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, travellers from other lands...

Hang on, doesn't one of the popular religions hereabouts have something to say on that subject?

blanch152

Sweg wrote: »

Nihilists love the idea of full, unrestricted access to abortion, because it would mean that people can act without having to worry about the consequence.

Nobody is arguing in favour of full unrestricted access to abortion.

What is being argued for is a rebalancing of rights.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are saying that we should allow people to kill other human beings if they want to do it "enough". What is "enough" then?

Why is buying a cheap air ticket and taking a couple of days off work evidence "enough" but being a 17 year old asylum seeker who is in deep distress not "enough"? Or do individual women not matter as long as most women can travel, thus preventing the pressure of dead women in Ireland from building up and causing public disquiet?

And does this "wanting something enough" also apply to other acts with 10+ years prison associated? Wanting to take a 12 year old to Thailand to abuse her? The system works well for those who wish to take that route, right?

i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal. it's very simple.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody is arguing in favour of full unrestricted access to abortion.

What is being argued for is a rebalancing of rights.

and thankfully a rebalancing of rights isn't required, as the unborn's right to life is only equal to the mother. that changes where the mother's life or health is at risk, and in that situation the mother will be prioritized.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal.

The 8th made doing that illegal, and the pro-life crew campaigned to keep it illegal, and 600,000+ voters agreed with them.

The reason we cannot stop people is that the pro-life crew lost that time.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The 8th made doing that illegal, and the pro-life crew campaigned to keep it illegal, and 600,000+ voters agreed with them.

The reason we cannot stop people is that the pro-life crew lost that time.

it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

It is not possible to prevent all murders, nonetheless, the State is obliged to try, not just to give up.

Likewise, the 8th obliged the State to try to protect the unborn, not to just give up and say oh well, what happens in England stays in England. Foreign abortions would have to have been criminalized with penalties like the PLDPA has for Irish abortions today, and that would serve as a deterrent.

Except the prolifers lost that one and we added a "ha ha - only kidding" clause to the text the 8th put in our Constitution.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

The revisionism (or is it willful ignorance?) around the 8th and travel is breathtaking at this point. I'd understand if this was the first time it was discussed, but it's not; not by a long shot.

If the referendum on the 13th had failed, then it would have been absolutely legal to use the 8th to prevent a woman traveling for an abortion overseas. The Supreme Court so in their judgment in the X Case. And when it comes to opinions on legal viability, theirs is the one that counts.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

If the referendum on the 13th had failed, then it would have been absolutely legal to use the 8th to prevent a woman traveling for an abortion overseas...

So if the 13th amendment had failed, we'd need to change the 8th amendment now, is that what you are saying?

Isn't that some sort of double negative, that implies everything worked out fine and dandy?

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

So if the 13th amendment had failed, we'd need to change the 8th amendment now, is that what you are saying?

Isn't that some sort of double negative, that implies everything worked out fine and dandy?

I said exactly what I said, which is that without the 13th, it would have been legal to use the 8th to stop women having abortions abroad. I said this because the poster I was replying to was suggesting there would have been legal uncertainty about using the 8th in this manner.

As for changes to the 8th, I think I've been unequivocal that I believe the 8th must go. That would be my opinion regardless of whether the referendum on the 13th amendment passed.

recedite

Not sure why you are talking about the 13th amendment then, except as some kind of strawman argument.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Not sure why you are talking about the 13th amendment then, except as some kind of strawman argument.

That's exactly what EOTR is doing, yes.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal. it's very simple.

Simple but untrue. We can stop people from travelling to Switzerland to assist a suicide, although that is perfectly legal there too so there is no reason, apart from the 13th, that we couldn't do the same with abortion if we wanted.

and thankfully a rebalancing of rights isn't required, as the unborn's right to life is only equal to the mother. that changes where the mother's life or health is at risk, and in that situation the mother will be prioritized.

Why would her health always be prioritized, if both have equal rights?