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

PhoenixParker

See the example above or someone with alzheimer's disease. I'll repeat again - anytime you draw any line other than the conception of a child you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults.

Ability to breathe and maintain a heartbeat, including with the assistance of man made devices.

That's a line.

Schumi7

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I define "human" in the way the context demands. If I am sitting in a conference on taxonomy I am going to define it very differently to how I would define it sitting at the table in a philosophical debate on morality.

That so many people, usually on the "no" side of this referendum, think the word has one meaning across all contexts is a point of genuine concern.

Exactly. You define human life and the value of human life according to context, or when it suits you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not misunderstanding you at all them as I very much predicted that "coma patients" would be your go to example as it happens because you are FAR from the first person to try that one.

And I repeat, that is blatantly and demonstrably not true given people have "drawn lines" that very much distinguish between a 10/12/16 week old fetus, and everything else that comes after it, which in no way is challenged by the concept of, definition of, or exists of, "Adults".

You are trying to falsify that statement by presenting only definitions that conform with your assertion. Rather than saying something like "Oh really? Well what definition do YOU use that bypasses the issue I have raised then?". Because the reality is that I do "draw a line other than the conception of a child" that in fact is not a "false line" and does not encounter the issue of being "applied to people who are adults". So your assertion is demonstrably false from the outset.

I used those examples to highlight the sophistry some people engage with to make certain actions more morally palatable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I did not call it a human right, and I made no reference whatsoever to International Law. So there appears to be three people in this conversation between us. You. Me. And this invisible person you are replying to the points of that I certainly never made. Unfortunately since this third person exists solely in your head it makes the conversation difficult, as I am not hearing his points, while you are.

I didn't say you did. I stated that abortion is not a human right in my original post to rebut the often repeated suggestion that it is one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

MY point however was that the focus of rights, morality and ethics has to be the well being of sentient creatures. And if one wants to curtail the rights, choices and well being of a sentient creature in deference to one that is not at all sentient......... then some level of justification should be demanded for that move. Justification you are not at all offering here.

My point is that the 'right' to choice, outside of the exceptions, is a lesser right than the right to life of the unborn.

As regards justification, in my original post I did point out the likely real world effects of repeal. Ireland is not immune to such changes.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again you have it exactly backwards. Calling a spade a spade takes nothing away from the spade. Because it actually is a spade. Calling a fetus a fetus, when it actually is a fetus, does not take away anything from the fetus.

So your "Dehumanization" narrative is backwards. No one is dehumanizing it at all. Rather they are questioning as unsubstantiated nonsense your attempt to humanize it before it's due. We are not removing characteristics that it has, so much as calling you out on trying to smuggle in those it does not.

I don't try to humanise it as it's already human life. I don't have to 'humanise' it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also no one here called abortion a contraception. It would be ludicrous to do so given we know what contraception actually means and abortion, by definition, is not one.

It has become another form of contraception wherever it has been legalised, regardless of the technical definition. That is demonstrably the case and that is the pertinent point here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Schumi7 wrote: »

Exactly. You define human life and the value of human life according to context, or when it suits you. I used those examples to highlight the sophistry some people engage with to make certain actions more morally palatable.

Nope, just according to the context. The "suits me" part you are making up yourself on my behalf because it suits YOU. So the sophistry is yours alone. If your definitions ignore context, then they are likely worthless or contrived.

The simple fact is however that you have claimed no line other than conception works, because all the lines people draw can be applied to adults (like coma patients) too. And this claim is demonstrably false because the line that I draw, in no way suffers from the issue you have raised.

Schumi7 wrote: »

I didn't say you did. I stated that abortion is not a human right in my original post to rebut the often repeated suggestion that it is one.

So I was exactly right when I said there was three people in this conversation. You, me, and this invisible person you are ACTUALLY replying to who is making suggestions entirely different to the ones I am writing. You do not actually care what I say or write, you are just using me as a platform to launch rebuttals of people who are not even here. You have a record to play, and no conversation to actually have.

Schumi7 wrote: »

My point is that the 'right' to choice, outside of the exceptions, is a lesser right than the right to life of the unborn. As regards justification, in my original post I did point out the likely real world effects of repeal. Ireland is not immune to such changes. I don't try to humanise it as it's already human life. I don't have to 'humanise' it.

So your only evidence that any of it is "likely" is based on a claim that it is not "immune" to it. Well that is hardly convincing at all. The issue here is you are inventing for the fetus "a right to life" without arguing how and why it actually should have one. No one here is denying that it is biologically "Human", that is not what is meant here by "Humanize" and "dehumanize". You are shifting the words and meanings of words to suit yourself.

Schumi7 wrote: »

It has become another form of contraception wherever it has been legalised, regardless of the technical definition. That is demonstrably the case and that is the pertinent point here.

Well then you are a cake, regardless of the definition of cake. See we can all ignore what words ACTUALLY mean and simply declare they are accurate even when they are not. Sure I am typing this on a fish. It does not matter that my keyboard has NONE of the attributes of a fish. I just want to CALL it a fish, so it is a fish.

No, abortion is not a contraception, because that simply is not what contraception means. And you not caring what words actually mean, in no way validates your misuse of them.

Schumi7

spacecoyote wrote: »

I, in essence, argued pretty much the same point from the opposite side on here a couple of weeks ago

Yes, the referendum is in essence a moral/ideological question.

You see your morals as right & believe that everyone should be forced to align with your beliefs.

I (and YES voters in general) respect your right to your own morals & won't force you to take any action that is outside of your beliefs system. But I also respect people with other perspectives choice to make the best decision for themselves.

Why are your morals more correct than mine or anyone else's?

If you don't believe in abortion then don't ever use the service.

I agree with you that there are some things that modern Ireland has lost, but the 8th is something modern Ireland still has currently & needs to lose

To which I could say something like...relativity applies to physics, not ethics. Such statements however can remain in the abstract, especially in sensitive debates like this one where many feel a strong intuitive attraction to both arguments. (I would, on balance, allow choice for the exceptions btw)

Look at the likely real world consequences I pointed out instead, which you partly referred to at the end of your reply. The example of other the Western nations should prove instructive. Ireland is not immune to such changes and if relativity prevails then they are likely to ensue. The culture of entitlement is fertile ground for such relativity.

My overarching point is that there are consequences to every value system; from the most puritan to the most hedonistic and everything in between. Human history is testament to that. Society is not static; there is cause and effect and a direction of travel. I do get the distinct impression from some that they see the current progessive/rights based ethos as representing some sort of 'End of History' moment (...a la Francis Fukuyama's contention that the end of the Cold War represented the 'End of History'). It doesn't.

nozzferrahhtoo

And relativity applies to physics, not politics. Not only are you making a correlation-causation error.......... by assuming based on nothing that abortion correlates with these factors you are scare mongering with........ you are not EVEN showing the correlation holds by showing that abortion has ANYTHING at all to do with the things you have listed.

Further these things you have failed to correlate with, let alone support a causal link with, are things you just trot out as if we should defacto accept them to be bad things. Like immigration or children born out of wedlock. Why pretend those things are automatically bad?

I have two children. We are happily unmarried. Do you want to explain to me how and why that is somehow a problem exactly? You want to explain to me how my life, my children's life, or society would somehow benefit from us getting married?

Schumi7

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And relativity applies to physics, not politics. Not only are you making a correlation-causation error.......... by assuming based on nothing that abortion correlates with these factors you are scare mongering with........ you are not EVEN showing the correlation holds by showing that abortion has ANYTHING at all to do with the things you have listed.

Firstly, my reply was to the other poster. Secondly, I have no desire to enter into some sort of grubby point scoring match with you on this issue.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further these things you have failed to correlate with, let alone support a causal link with, are things you just trot out as if we should defacto accept them to be bad things. Like immigration or children born out of wedlock. Why pretend those things are automatically bad?

The following is descriptive btw, in case you are quick to accuse me of advocacy.

Ireland differs from the other Western nations because our culture currently places life and the family on a higher pedestal. The 8th Amendment is a constitutional reflection of this and the demographic statistics are testament to it.

Immigration in itself isn't bad, but large scale immigration is evidently bad because it leads to the stark political changes that we have seen across Europe and America in recent years - changes which are not in the ether here. Virulent forms of nationalism have emerged and the EU is still in danger.

This wasn't the result of some conspiracy however, the level of immigration seen elsewhere was necessary because the 'native' population in these countries no longer replenished themselves. As the family declines, there is more divorce, less pregnancies, more abortion etc, and the birth rate collapses.* In order to pay for pensions; to keep the health and education services and so on fit for purpose, immigration is required. In other words, immigration only becomes a problem when the 'host' culture becomes weak. When this happens a pluralist society becomes a 'multi-cultural' one and problems ensue.

Studies have long shown that single parent families and family instability in general is linked with lower educational attainment; much higher rates of mental health problems; higher rates of juvenile delinquency, to name but a few.

The effect of each on society as a whole when both become more commonplace is obvious. The decline of the family heralds the growth of the state and economies of ever increasing debt. It's the most concerning issue of our time.

* Reams of literature on this demographic crisis or 'time-bomb' have been produced for years btw. A simple google search will alert anyone to it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have two children. We are happily unmarried. Do you want to explain to me how and why that is somehow a problem exactly?

I'm not referring to you specifically.

Any idea if the count will start tomorrow night or will it be Saturday?

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

Any idea if the count will start tomorrow night or will it be Saturday?

Saturday morning, but RTE are doing an exit poll so there'll be a rough indication of the outcome tomorrow night.

An Ciarraioch

Veteran Twitter commentator Keith Mills gives a fair assessment of the figures he believes "No" need in each constituency - can only personally comment on Kerry, where I believe it'll be closer to 55% No, but would be interesting to get opinions on his analysis:

https://mobile.twitter.com/KeithMillsD7/status/999618328103661568

Overheal

Charmeleon wrote: »

Making up arbitrary tests of whether a human individual (or group) is as ‘human’ as us is inherently dangerous and convenient, when we get to choose the parameters.

When people go through IVF, would people accept a ‘lucky dip’ from a communal pool of embryos? Only the most desperate would not seek their own fertilised embryos if they are available.

The ability to distinguish medically which embryos would have our dna is not the same thing as saying those embryos are people.

Overheal

Schumi7 wrote: »

Abortion isn't a human right in international law and inherent in the bodily autonomy argument is the notion that the other life is property. You don't have to delve too far back in time for another example of that kind of thinking. (I'm not accusing you of being pro-slavery btw. There is just a striking overlap in the arguments used.

“The UN Human Rights Committee found that by not providing access to abortion to these women, Ireland was in violation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy. These are all set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to which Ireland is a signatory.”

http://theconversation.com/irelands-8th-amendment-is-a-breach-of-its-own-human-rights-commitments-97013

Charmeleon

Overheal wrote: »

The ability to distinguish medically which embryos would have our dna is not the same thing as saying those embryos are people.

‘People’ usually means the human beings you meet or know are out there in the world interacting in their community. That’s why I say an individual human being. The most basic unit of humanity, sharing our heritage all the way back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Overheal

Charmeleon wrote: »

‘People’ usually means the human beings you meet or know are out there in the world interacting in their community. That’s why I say an individual human being. The most basic unit of humanity, sharing our heritage all the way back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Embryos are not human beings. They are human embryos.

Just from a flash google:

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Hope that helps you out.

Schumi7

Overheal wrote: »

“The UN Human Rights Committee found that by not providing access to abortion to these women, Ireland was in violation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy. These are all set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to which Ireland is a signatory.”

http://theconversation.com/irelands-8th-amendment-is-a-breach-of-its-own-human-rights-commitments-97013

The above relates to the exceptions, for which I am pro-choice, and doesn't contradict what I said.

There is no right to abort in law, nor is it a Right under the European Convention.

Overheal

Schumi7 wrote: »

The above relates to the exceptions, for which I am pro-choice, and doesn't contradict what I said.

The point still stands however - there is no right to abort in law, nor is it a Right under the European Convention.

But doesn’t detract from reasons to vote for repeal in this referendum?

Charmeleon

Overheal wrote: »

Embryos are not human beings. They are human embryos.

Just from a flash google:

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Hope that helps you out.

People used to say a pregnant woman was ‘with child’ before it became medicalised with Latin and Greek jargon. Child means a human being that has not passed through puberty and cannot reproduce. There’s no lower limit, only an upper one.

The American Convention on Human Rights goes further and ascribes personhood, it states in article 4.1:
Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Schumi7

Overheal wrote: »

But doesn’t detract from reasons to vote for repeal in this referendum?

I would vote Yes if the replacement provision covered the exceptions only, but it doesn't. I set out my reasons in post #1274.

Overheal

Charmeleon wrote: »

People used to say a pregnant woman was ‘with child’ before it became medicalised with Latin and Greek jargon. Child means a human being that has not passed through puberty and cannot reproduce. There’s no lower limit, only an upper one.

The American Convention on Human Rights goes further and ascribes personhood, it states in article 4.1:
Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Which is in contravention of the US’s own laws on abortion.

Overheal

Schumi7 wrote: »

I would vote Yes if the replacement provision covered the exceptions only but it doesn't. I set out my reasons in post #1274.

I just don’t follow why it should be that you vote No - closing the debate on this amendment for an indeterminate number of years - because of the proposed legislation, if you agree that some form of legislation will be a good thing post-repeal, and that you would in that case repeal. It is far more likely to be the case that you will get the outcome you want faster by that route than by voting No, which would require an entirely new referendum period, before a legislative period, all over again - and again, not for many years and governments to come.

Charmeleon

Overheal wrote: »

Which is in contravention of the US’s own laws on abortion.

Indeed it is, the US signed the convention but has so far failed to fully ratify it. Canada also has not ratified it. Most of the other states in the Americas have ratified it, though one or two subsequently denounced it on grounds of the death penalty I think

Schumi7

Overheal wrote: »

I just don’t follow why it should be that you vote No - closing the debate on this amendment for an indeterminate number of years - because of the proposed legislation, if you agree that some form of legislation will be a good thing post-repeal, and that you would in that case repeal. It is far more likely to be the case that you will get the outcome you want faster by that route than by voting No, which would require an entirely new referendum period, before a legislative period, all over again - and again, not for many years and governments to come.

Simply because the greater good trumps the exceptional cases, for the reasons I outlined in my original post, #1274.

The greater good matters Overheal, it matters a lot!

Overheal

Schumi7 wrote: »

Simply because the greater good trumps the exceptional cases, for the reasons I outlined in my original post, #1274.

The greater good matters Overheal, it matters a lot!

I’d argue that the greater good (T’au’va!) would be population controls rather: allowing people not to reproduce at their will. The greater good here thus seems to be open to personal interpretation.

oscarBravo

Schumi7 wrote: »

Simply because the greater good trumps the exceptional cases, for the reasons I outlined in my original post, #1274.

Your original post contains two assertions that seem contradictory to me: you appear to claim that a human person with a right to life exists from the moment of conception; and you claim to be reluctantly in favour of abortion for the "usual exceptions" - you don't elaborate, but I'm guessing rape, incest and FFA.

Nobody else has answered this question, but maybe you can: why is it OK to kill a human person with a right to life, just because of the circumstances of its conception?

Charmeleon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your original post contains two assertions that seem contradictory to me: you appear to claim that a human person with a right to life exists from the moment of conception; and you claim to be reluctantly in favour of abortion for the "usual exceptions" - you don't elaborate, but I'm guessing rape, incest and FFA.

Nobody else has answered this question, but maybe you can: why is it OK to kill a human person with a right to life, just because of the circumstances of its conception?

I tried to answer it in another thread I think, based on the argument that rape could be considered one of the supreme crimes, like a war of aggression, which encompasses all of the crimes and immoral acts that follow from it, including actions in defense and with the aim of restitution. So the rapist bears moral culpability for the rape and the killing of the unborn, in order to provide natural justice for the victim.

Another argument that could be made is that abortion prevents the rapist from benefiting from the crime by increasing their progeny and establishing a living link to their victim long after the violation. It removes such a motivation.

Not all people would find these persuasive but they could be defensible arguments.

end of the road

sydthebeat wrote: »

the no sides 'ordinary people' are afraid to voice their viewpoint for fear of having to argue it, afraid to face calls to explain septic tanks in tuam, or the laundries, or the business of selling kids to America etc.

agreed, but ultimately, we wouldn't have to explain those. we are not responsible for those. the vast majority of us condemn those actions, in fact most of us have no time for religion anyway. if not most certainly a huge amount of us. those who are responsible for those barbaric acts are either dead or elderly. those who would call for us to explain the goings on are just looking to attack someone, anyone, who doesn't share their view.

sydthebeat wrote: »

This will be close but I hope to God it passes and women are given back control of their own bodies.

with the greatist of respect, women already have control of their bodies. they have had for decades. the problem is how we deal with situations where there is a conflict between the rights of the woman and the unborn. however what may kill the repeal of the 8th is the government's proposal which goes to far to deal with those genuine conflicts (for what it's worth i think it will be a yes to repeal)

spacecoyote wrote: »

I, in essence, argued pretty much the same point from the opposite side on here a couple of weeks ago

Yes, the referendum is in essence a moral/ideological question.

You see your morals as right & believe that everyone should be forced to align with your beliefs.

I (and YES voters in general) respect your right to your own morals & won't force you to take any action that is outside of your beliefs system. But I also respect people with other perspectives choice to make the best decision for themselves.

Why are your morals more correct than mine or anyone else's?

If you don't believe in abortion then don't ever use the service.

I agree with you that there are some things that modern Ireland has lost, but the 8th is something modern Ireland still has currently & needs to lose

why are the morals that lead to any of our laws been made, more correct then those of those who disagree with them? in some cases that is easy to answer. others not so.
the "If you don't believe in abortion then don't ever use the service" argument doesn't work, given it involves the ending of a human being's life, and we don't simply tell people not to end a human being's life or not to harm another human being.

pleas advice

Overheal wrote: »

The ability to distinguish medically which embryos would have our dna is not the same thing as saying those embryos are people.

And now im looking up inter species surrogacy...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_pregnancy

...a potential yet ethically controversial alternative to surrogate mothers or artificial uteri for gay male couples,[2] mothers with damaged uteri or straight couples that do not want to risk childbirth. It would also provide a sober, drug-free and nonsmoking carrier that is cheaper than human surrogates.[2]

Overheal

pleas advice wrote: »

And now im looking up inter species surrogacy...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_pregnancy

Me mother was a bison

sydthebeat

end of the road wrote: »

with the greatist of respect, women already have control of their bodies. they have had for decades. the problem is how we deal with situations where there is a conflict between the rights of the woman and the unborn.

And with the greatest of respect, this is the singular issue.
There simply cannot be equal rights afforded in the case of a pregnancy to the mother and the unborn as the relationship is not equal. Firstly, That unborn can only have one mother, yet that mother can have many unborn. If the mother is sacrificed to save the unborn (without her consent) then there have been many potential people destroyed. Secondly, the unborn relationship to the mother is a parasitic one in which the unborn is fully dependent on sustainance from the mother. This is not an equal relationship.

We need to care for our women first and foremost as they are the future of our species.

machiavellianme

Sorry for going slightly OT, but is there not supposed to be a ban on advertising for the referendum now?
Tried looking at one of the national newspapers online and have seen 2 separate ads for a no vote on the main page.

nozzferrahhtoo

Schumi7 wrote: »

Firstly, my reply was to the other poster. Secondly, I have no desire to enter into some sort of grubby point scoring match with you on this issue.

Firstly, that is irrelevant as this is an open discussion board and any post you make to one user is made to ALL users. If you want a private conversation, there is a functional PM system on the site.

Secondly, you can dodge points and questions all you like, but that does not make my asking those questions, or making those points, a "grubby point scoring match".

My point stands that you are scare mongering the effects of a yes result by asserting a correlation that does not appear to even exist, and then using those in a correlation-causation assumption that simply does not hold.

That fact is not a "points scoring" one, it is a direct rebuttal of the narrative you have chosen to run with. Thanks for simply ignoring my previous post all the same though. Maybe you plan to reply to it later?

Schumi7 wrote: »

Ireland differs from the other Western nations because our culture currently places life and the family on a higher pedestal. The 8th Amendment is a constitutional reflection of this and the demographic statistics are testament to it.

That is wanton assertion, and false on the face of it. If Ireland differs from other nations it is because of MANY factors and reasons, not just the one you cherry pick to suit your narrative. Our population size is different, our political and education system is different, our medical system is different, our geopraphic concerns and advantages are different, our work ethic is different, our history as an occupied and then freed state is different, our history of religion and interaction with our state church is different, our constitution is different. Our musical, literary, artistic culture is different. There are NUMEROUS differences between us and other nations and I have named but a small selection of them.

But all that said you just shot your own argument in the foot by even acknowledging how different we are in the first place. Because that undermines the narrative you are trying to sell that this correlation-causation fail you are peddaling suggests that our nation will follow in the tracks of those others. An assumption you have A) not substantiated in any way and now have offered a good reason to doubt.

And further the factors you have tried to scare monger with, like immigration, you also admit are not actually bad in the first place. So you undermine that narrative yet further. But you do have a tendency to throw things out as if we are to assume they are automatically bad things. You did this in your first post, and you do it further in this one with lines like "it leads to the stark political changes that we have seen across Europe and America" as if somehow change, or even stark change, is automatically a bad thing. Change, small or large, is neither good or bad. It entirely depends on WHAT change is made and WHY.

FURTHER your narrative on immigration demands that legalized abortion here would somehow affect our birth rate. This is quite the fantastical assumption given that the vast majority of Irish abortions are ALREADY HAPPENING, just not on Irish soil. So to bolster your narrative you would have to show not only that legalized abortion would cause an increase in the quantity of abortions at all (against all the evidence from countries where legalized abortion correlated with not only no increase, but even reductions)........ but that the increase would be significant enough to make credible your narrative.

NONE of this have you actually done yet.

Schumi7 wrote: »

Studies have long shown that single parent families and family instability in general is linked with lower educational attainment; much higher rates of mental health problems; higher rates of juvenile delinquency, to name but a few.

Again AGAIN correlation does not causation make. It is true that SOME studies (not all that many in the cases of some of the factors you list) have correlated single parent families and instabilities with those things. But that in no way AT ALL implies those family dynamics caused those things. In fact the opposite could be just as true, that factors such as mental health problems and juvenile delinquency were actually the causal factor in the break down of the marriage/relationships.

Schumi7 wrote: »

I'm not referring to you specifically.

Nor am I, but thanks for dodging the question any way. I am referring not to me specifically, but what I represent. When I ask you "Do you want to explain to me how and why that is somehow a problem exactly? You want to explain to me how my life, my children's life, or society would somehow benefit from us getting married?" I am not actually limiting that question to me personally, but every other relationship that matches mine. Tell us ALL what the problem is and us ALL how our relationship, our children's lives, and society would be better off if I, and those like me, either married before we reproduced..... or if we were to go off next month and get married now.

Because I think once again you are throwing out things you want people to merely assume to be bad. Mentioning "unmarried parents" and so forth, like my self, without any qualifications as if we are all automatically to assume this to be a bad thing. Tell me, for example, if the ENTIRE population of Ireland were to decide never to get married again, but to continue to copulate and reproduce as they are now..... who and what precisely would actually suffer?

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

People used to say a pregnant woman was ‘with child’ before it became medicalised with Latin and Greek jargon.

So what? People misuse language all the time. And this is not a problem. It would be a horrible world to live in if language could only mean one exact thing all the time. If a pregnant person wants to call it a "child" then they by all means should.

However when language, and specifically the misuse of language, in a given context brings in false and/or misleading concepts...... or is used to by pass reason and discourse by making appeals to unwarranted emotions......... (whether intentionally or not).......... then THAT makes it time to step up and be more pedantic in the meaning of terms.

And the simple fact is that calling a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (when the majority of abortions actually occur) a "child" in the context of a discussion on abortion............ is exactly that. An attempt to mislead, and appeal to the emotions of, the target of that word.

pleas advice

machiavellianme wrote: »

Sorry for going slightly OT, but is there not supposed to be a ban on advertising for the referendum now?
Tried looking at one of the national newspapers online and have seen 2 separate ads for a no vote on the main page.

Only applies to tv and radio, afaik

spacecoyote

end of the road wrote: »

why are the morals that lead to any of our laws been made, more correct then those of those who disagree with them? in some cases that is easy to answer. others not so.
the "If you don't believe in abortion then don't ever use the service" argument doesn't work, given it involves the ending of a human being's life, and we don't simply tell people not to end a human being's life or not to harm another human being.

What's being asked is not to add one person's morals over another's into the constitution. We already have that.

What's being asked is to remove one specific groups morals from said constitution.

From your perspective giving people the option, but not the obligation doesn't work. From my perspective it does. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

NuMarvel

machiavellianme wrote: »

Sorry for going slightly OT, but is there not supposed to be a ban on advertising for the referendum now?
Tried looking at one of the national newspapers online and have seen 2 separate ads for a no vote on the main page.

The Journal did a piece on that yesterday.

LAST WEEK GOOGLE said it was blocking referendum ads. So why are you still seeing campaign ads online?

It transpires that although Google had paused all ads related to the referendum, there are other ways for ads to appear through a Google product – its EBDA platform, which involves what’s known as exchange bidding for ads."

Esperanza12

I’ll be glad to see the end of advertising from both sides of the campaign. But I’m particularly tired of the “women are victims” narrative spouted by the leftie media. And our oh-so-young and trendy Leo saying he’s voting Yes for the sake of his sister, his mother, his women friends. Get a grip. Grown-up women need to take responsibility for their actions and genuinely take control of their bodies. It’s not that easy to get pregnant - anyone over the age of 10 should know how babies are made. From the Yes campaign, you’d swear pregnancy was some kind of nasty virus (“crisis”) carried by spores in the wind, landing on unsuspecting victims.

Overheal

Esperanza12 wrote: »

I’ll be glad to see the end of advertising from both sides of the campaign. But I’m particularly tired of the “women are victims” narrative spouted by the leftie media. And our oh-so-young and trendy Leo saying he’s voting Yes for the sake of his sister, his mother, his women friends. Get a grip. Grown-up women need to take responsibility for their actions and genuinely take control of their bodies. It’s not that easy to get pregnant - anyone over the age of 10 should know how babies are made. From the Yes campaign, you’d swear pregnancy was some kind of nasty virus (“crisis”) carried by spores in the wind, landing on unsuspecting victims.

voted to repeal then?

As we know, rape exists and birth control can fail. And even the not grown-up women, that is, girls, can still be raped and or become pregnant. In any case there’s no sense in forcing a child on someone you already claim is irresponsible.

nozzferrahhtoo

Esperanza12 wrote: »

Grown-up women need to take responsibility for their actions and genuinely take control of their bodies. It’s not that easy to get pregnant - anyone over the age of 10 should know how babies are made.

And sports people know that injuries can happen when they walk into the field of play. But when those injuries happen we do not ride our high horse over to them admonishing them for appearing to be the unsuspecting victim.... telling them they knew what they were getting into..... and so on. That is just moral high horsing at people, which achieves nothing for anyone. Other than the personal buzz you might get from imagining yourself to be on a pedestal above them.

However when we see a line like "Grown-up women need to take responsibility for their actions and genuinely take control of their bodies" it must be pointed out that that is EXACTLY what people campaigning for a yes vote want..... to make changes to the law to allow them to do exactly that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Esperanza12

I’m not talking about rape victims. I’m talking about the vast majority of cases lumped under the Yes campain's description of “crisis pregnancies”. If you really don’t want to get pregnant, you can avoid having sex during your fertile period (only a few days a month) and use more than one form of contraception. A bit of an inconvenience, I’ll agree. And there are other ways of having fun with a sexual partner besides penetrative sex. Too late to start thinking about responsibility after the act - it’s all “poor me”. Pro-choice, my foot. More like anti-consequence.

nozzferrahhtoo

No one is anti consequence here. Rather you are misconstruing what the word consequence means, and what it means to take responsibility.

Further you can list all the contraceptive methodologies you like. The fact remains that a small% of a large number.... is a large number. And even with an ideal (which we never actually get) usage statistics of combined methodologies you will still get a % of failures.

Taking responsibility for your actions means honest evaluation of the result of your actions, the options open to you, and the selection of the best one for you.

YOU seem to want it to mean "Make the choices I would, and avoid the ones I would not". Which means rather than wanting people to take responsibility for their actions, you want to take it on their behalf.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So what? People misuse language all the time. And this is not a problem. It would be a horrible world to live in if language could only mean one exact thing all the time. If a pregnant person wants to call it a "child" then they by all means should.

However when language, and specifically the misuse of language, in a given context brings in false and/or misleading concepts...... or is used to by pass reason and discourse by making appeals to unwarranted emotions......... (whether intentionally or not).......... then THAT makes it time to step up and be more pedantic in the meaning of terms.

And the simple fact is that calling a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (when the majority of abortions actually occur) a "child" in the context of a discussion on abortion............ is exactly that. An attempt to mislead, and appeal to the emotions of, the target of that word.

You can’t retrospectively change the meaning of a word, it has been used for who knows how long: ‘she’s carrying his child’ etc. No one says ‘she is carrying his fetus’. Fetus is a technical, medical term not a common use word until the discussion of reproductive rights became a popular issue. Child just refers to the human offspring before puberty.

In fact Miriam Webster gives the definition:
“Definition of child

plural children play \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\
1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant”

Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 9th edition:
child
Etymology: AS, cild
1 a person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence.
2 an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant.
3 an offspring or descendant; a son or daughter or a member of a particular tribe or clan.
4 one who is like a child or immature.

Duhaime’s Law Dictionary:
“Child Definition:
A young individual who is under the legal age of majority, or who is the natural offspring of another.”

Esperanza12

“Injuries can happen when they walk into the field of play” - what a strange analogy for sexual relations.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

You can’t retrospectively change the meaning of a word, it has been used for who knows how long: ‘she’s carrying his child’ etc.

Then you must be overjoyed to find that I am not changing the meaning of any word. Rather I am simply recognizing a fact, that words have meanings and words can be misused, and we are perfectly happy to have people misuse words in contexts where it simply does not matter that they are doing it.

However in contexts where it DOES start to matter, then the correct use of terminology is to be strongly encouraged.

So you can quote all the dictionary definitions in the world at me, but you will not be negating my point so much as simply talking past it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Esperanza12 wrote: »

“Injuries can happen when they walk into the field of play” - what a strange analogy for sexual relations.

It is not an analogy for sexual relations though is it now? It is an analogy for knowingly engaging in actions that come with risks. But if you want to misrepresent the analogy in an effort to cover up a dodge of the actual point/post.... then so be it. But it is a blatantly obvious and transparent move.

Dressing gown

Esperanza12 wrote: »

I’m not talking about rape victims. I’m talking about the vast majority of cases lumped under the Yes campain's description of “crisis pregnancies”. If you really don’t want to get pregnant, you can avoid having sex during your fertile period (only a few days a month) and use more than one form of contraception. A bit of an inconvenience, I’ll agree. And there are other ways of having fun with a sexual partner besides penetrative sex. Too late to start thinking about responsibility after the act - it’s all “poor me”. Pro-choice, my foot. More like anti-consequence.

You are so clueless. People get pregnant from sex during their period. Maybe not you, or your partner but many do. I’ve a gaggle of siblings I wouldn’t have if your “few days a month” was correct.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nettle Soup

Any word on voting numbers yet? I don't think I have ever looked forward to voting as I do today.

Billgirlylegs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And sports people know that injuries can happen when they walk into the field of play. But when those injuries happen we do not ride our high horse over to them admonishing them for appearing to be the unsuspecting victim.... telling them they knew what they were getting into..... and so on. That is just moral high horsing at people, which achieves nothing for anyone. Other than the personal buzz you might get from imagining yourself to be on a pedestal above them.

However when we see a line like "Grown-up women need to take responsibility for their actions and genuinely take control of their bodies" it must be pointed out that that is EXACTLY what people campaigning for a yes vote want..... to make changes to the law to allow them to do exactly that.

Completely OT
You have obviously never experienced grumpy matron in casualty/accident emergency, when you bring an injured footballer fpr treatment.
Horses don't get much higher:pac:

Esperanza12

Esperanza12 wrote: »

I’m not talking about rape victims. I’m talking about the vast majority of cases lumped under the Yes campain's description of “crisis pregnancies”. If you really don’t want to get pregnant, you can avoid having sex during your fertile period (only a few days a month) and use more than one form of contraception. A bit of an inconvenience, I’ll agree. And there are other ways of having fun with a sexual partner besides penetrative sex. Too late to start thinking about responsibility after the act - it’s all “poor me”. Pro-choice, my foot. More like anti-consequence.

So you believe in using children as some kind of punishment?

nozzferrahhtoo

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Completely OT

Well yes, it would be. Analogies have a strong tendency to be to things different to the current topic. That is, in effect, their purpose. To example a form of thinking OUTSIDE the current topic, in order to highlight how it works WITHIN the current topic.

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

You have obviously never experienced grumpy matron in casualty/accident emergency, when you bring an injured footballer fpr treatment. Horses don't get much higher:pac:

And I wish we were better placed to deal with such people for not acting in accordance with their roles. Alas nursing and medical staff in general is an area of much issue, and so we are held over a barrel in a way that forces us to allow them get away with poor behavior in their jobs that is far from ideal. But that really is getting OT.

But the point remains, life and life choices hold risk..... and consequence. And in most cases we do not as a society stand over the victim of consequence to inform them that they knew what they were getting into and they should simply suck it up and get on with the hand life has dealt them.

No, we move where possible and prudent to offer them all the chances and choices we can to deal with their circumstance and allow them to choose for themselves how to move forward. Why should the subject of abortion be any different?