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

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Ah come on now, it’s bad enough not to admit you were wrong, but to then accuse me of ‘talking past’ your point is bad form.

What you are saying is the equivalent of a barrister saying in court to a claimant ‘you said you were hit on the arm, but that was false, wasn’t it? You were actually hit on your humerus and radius’. They would be laughed out of court.

Sure, correct usage of words is important in technical discussions, you cannot argue that a child cannot not include the unborn when clearly it can. Dictionaries aren’t for pointless fun. They reflect widely accepted meanings.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

Ah come on now, it’s bad enough not to admit you were wrong, but to then accuse me of ‘talking past’ your point is bad form.

I always admit I am wrong, when it is in fact the case. This does not appear to be one of those cases.

But yes showing me the definition of the words is speaking past my position because my position is not about what the definition of any given word actually is..... but on the difference between contexts where we are happy to have people misuse the words.... and those where we are not.

So you are indeed talking past me as much as if I was discussing the difference between the size of two cakes, and you responding by telling me one of them used artificial sweetener and hence tastes different.

Charmeleon wrote: »

What you are saying is the equivalent of a barrister saying in court to a claimant ‘you said you were hit on the arm, but that was false, wasn’t it? You were actually hit on your humerus and radius’. They would be laughed out of court. Sure, correct usage of words is important in technical discussions, you cannot argue that a child cannot not include the unborn when clearly it can. Dictionaries aren’t for pointless fun. They reflect widely accepted meanings.

The issue again is that the word "child" imports meanings that simply do not actually apply to the fetus. Your own definitions make this point for me in fact, though you appear not to have noticed this. Take your first one "an unborn or recently born person".

So what is missing in your statement "you cannot argue that a child cannot not include the unborn when clearly it can" is a qualification on what you even refer to when you say "unborn". Because clearly that single word can refer to MANY different things. Both a 10 week old fetus (which is where the majority of abortion happens) and a 35 week old one are both "The unborn" but not both of them is a "person" and hence your use of the word "child" is pedantically defensible with one, but would be entirely wrong in the other.

That is why I keep telling you context is important. And in the context of abortion, the significant majority of abortion happens (80%) by week 10. The use of the word "child" at this point is wrong, inaccurate, misleading, contrived, propaganda and appeal to (rather, abuse of) emotion. Nothing more.

And that has been the entire hallmark of this debate for me for the last months. The move time and time again has been to take broad words like "Human" "child" "unborn" and simply blur the lines about what it is being applied to, and why. The clear contrived agenda being to have attributes of each word that apply to one context, slip into the others hopefully unnoticed so that they will misfire the emotional concerns of the mark.

SusieBlue

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.

Such helpful, compassionate advice to someone having an unplanned pregnancy.
You should write a book with this info - if they knew they could just "not get pregnant" we wouldn't even have this problem!

Dressing gown

Nettle Soup wrote: »

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

3.2 million registered. Circa 188k on the supplemental register. Biggest new voter numbers in Dublin City and Dun Laoigre rathdown. Next biggest greater Dublin area and cork. Lowest numbers in Roscommon and Leitrim.

Can’t find link but think it’s the times.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I always admit I am wrong, when it is in fact the case. This does not appear to be one of those cases.

But yes showing me the definition of the words is speaking past my position because my position is not about what the definition of any given word actually is..... but on the difference between contexts where we are happy to have people misuse the words.... and those where we are not.

So you are indeed talking past me as much as if I was discussing the difference between the size of two cakes, and you responding by telling me one of them used artificial sweetener and hence tastes different.



The issue again is that the word "child" imports meanings that simply do not actually apply to the fetus. Your own definitions make this point for me in fact, though you appear not to have noticed this. Take your first one "an unborn or recently born person".

So what is missing in your statement "you cannot argue that a child cannot not include the unborn when clearly it can" is a qualification on what you even refer to when you say "unborn". Because clearly that single word can refer to MANY different things. Both a 10 week old fetus (which is where the majority of abortion happens) and a 35 week old one are both "The unborn" but not both of them is a "person" and hence your use of the word "child" is pedantically defensible with one, but would be entirely wrong in the other.

That is why I keep telling you context is important. And in the context of abortion, the significant majority of abortion happens (80%) by week 10. The use of the word "child" at this point is wrong, inaccurate, misleading, contrived, propaganda and appeal to (rather, abuse of) emotion. Nothing more.

And that has been the entire hallmark of this debate for me for the last months. The move time and time again has been to take broad words like "Human" "child" "unborn" and simply blur the lines about what it is being applied to, and why. The clear contrived agenda being to have attributes of each word that apply to one context, slip into the others hopefully unnoticed so that they will misfire the emotional concerns of the mark.

On the contrary, the opposite is true. The move has been towards the use of medical terms to try and dehumanise the unborn human. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary is an authorative source and it specifically includes fetus under the definition of a child. War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength etc.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

On the contrary, the opposite is true. The move has been towards the use of medical terms to try and dehumanise the unborn human.

Not at all. The problem is you have not justified it's humanization at stages like 10 weeks in the first place. Until you do that, I can not be accused of DEhumanizing something you have failed to validly humanize in the first place. Other than through the misuse of terminology.

By all means present arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to support such a position. But do not simply expect us to take it's humanity in that sense as the default just because it suits you for it to be.

Esperanza12

And there it is, inevitably. The C-word. As if there were anything “compassionate” about flushing another human life down the toilet or having it excavated and tossed into a bucket as hospital waste. We'll all come up with our arguments to justify our positions. If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that we'll never agree on the subject of abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

And there it is, inevitably. The J-word. As if there were anything we have to "justify" in our treatment of a non-sentient entity.

Maybe a dictionary is useful in this case. Compassion: "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

How can you have compassion for an entity that is not also NOT suffering, but lacks every capacity to suffer, or to be a being that can suffer, in the first place?

The only one posting a position that requires "justification" so far is you. That being why the choices, well being, and freedoms of an actual sentient agent should be curtailed in deference to one that simply and wholly is not?

SusieBlue

Esperanza12 wrote: »

And there it is, inevitably. The C-word. As if there were anything “compassionate” about flushing another human life down the toilet or having it excavated and tossed into a bucket as hospital waste. We'll all come up with our arguments to justify our positions. If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that we'll never agree on the subject of abortion.

I completely agree. People are at odds over this.
Therefore the only way to allow all people the freedom to make their own decisions on the matter, and live their lives according to their own morals, is a Yes vote.
Those that need abortions can have them, those that don't can continue their lives as normal.
No forced opinions on all of society. Everyone makes up their own mind.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all. The problem is you have not justified it's humanization at stages like 10 weeks in the first place. Until you do that, I can not be accused of DEhumanizing something you have failed to validly humanize in the first place. Other than through the misuse of terminology.

By all means present arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to support such a position. But do not simply expect us to take it's humanity in that sense as the default just because it suits you for it to be.

If a fetus was found in the street a pathologist can identify if it is human or some other species. Then the next step is to make sure the mother is ok. The fetus is human, it’s lineage belongs to Homo Sapiens Sapiens and no other. You are dehumanizing it by denying it is human at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

If a fetus was found in the street a pathologist can identify if it is human or some other species. Then the next step is to make sure the mother is ok. The fetus is human, it’s lineage belongs to Homo Sapiens Sapiens and no other. You are dehumanizing it by denying it is human at all.

You are wrong again, because you are referring to "human" in terms of pure biology here. Which no one here A) disagrees with or has made a SINGLE dehumanizing move in this entire thread.

When I say you have not humanized the fetus I am not at all referring to biology. But you know that, because I have explained it so many times already. You just choose to ignore that distinction so you can hold on to this wanton and desperate canard of amalgamating all the meanings of "human" into one and then standing in front of the word hoping no one looks behind it.

So when you write "You are dehumanizing it by denying it is human at all." you are just erecting straw men, and shoving words into my mouth I never once actually said.

Charmeleon

I am starting to think the only thing you are certain of is that your position is correct and words mean anything you want them to. To dehumanise is to deprive of human qualities and attributes, the fetus in its genetic makeup and its relationship with its parents has human qualities and attributes that a cow fetus does not.

Esperanza12

I’m against the death penalty too. Should I just avoid having it imposed on myself? The “everyone makes up their own mind/whatever you’re having yourself” approach to legislation is less than compelling.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

I am starting to think the only thing you are certain of is that your position is correct and words mean anything you want them to.

Quite the opposite. My issue is that people are making the word "Human" mean anything they want it to mean as and when it suits them to dodge points.

I am the one being honest about the word by recognizing a single simple fact that neither you, or anyone else, has denied. Which is that when we talk about "Human" in terms of biology and "Human" in terms of personhood, rights, philosophy, morality and ethics..... we are using the same word but engaging with ENTIRELY different meanings of them.

Whereas people like yourself are happy to jump between those two contextually different uses of the word "Human" all the while pretending like no transition of any type has actually occurred. Which just leads you to, as you demonstrably just did, inserting words and positions into my mouth I never actually remotely espoused. At any time. Anywhere. Ever.

Charmeleon wrote: »

To dehumanise is to deprive of human qualities and attributes, the fetus in its genetic makeup and its relationship with its parents has human qualities and attributes that a cow fetus does not.

And my only point is, has been, and continues to be that NONE of what you just wrote there is relevant to the philosophical discourse on when, why, and on what basis an entity should have rights, or should attain them.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

Dressing gown wrote: »

If a friend or a family member or a colleague lost a pregnancy to miscarriage at 11 weeks, would you feel the same degree of sympathy as you would to a friend or a family member or a colleague that lost their full term baby to a FFA or their five year old child or that’s child’s mother?

Feeling no sympathy for someone is not the same as dehumanizing them.

Charmeleon

Dressing gown wrote: »

Lets try it with a cake. Would you call a cake mixture that has been removed from being in the oven for just under a third of the cooking time a cake? I would imagine not. Because it is not yet ready to be a cake. But, how about a cake that is 2/3 cooked? Most would call it an undercooked cake, but a cake nonetheless.

However crude and oversimplified the analogy, i think many yes voters are comfortable with seeing the cake mixture from the undercooked cake. Many of the no voters do not. Never the two shall meet.

Cakes don’t spontaneously assemble themselves and do not carry ‘cake DNA’ that it shares with all of cakedom. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that at no stage in the cake making process is it alive. Someone gathers ingredients and makes them into something they might never have become part of. A human develops after conception, is a living being and carries both a unique human genome and a shared genetic heritage with all of us.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

Feeling no sympathy for someone is not the same as dehumanizing them.

Which no one is doing, despite your pretense.

But AGAIN it pays to be clear what one means with words like "sympathy" and "empathy". These are words that, be definition, are us sharing in the feelings of another.

And when we are speaking of a 10 week old fetus, where the majority of abortions occur, there is no "other" to be communing with in this manner. As such you are not so much sympathizing or empathizing with such a fetus, but projecting your own feelings onto them. Which is, I trust you will note, a massively different thing.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Cakes don’t spontaneously assemble themselves and do not carry ‘cake DNA’ that it shares with all of cakedom. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that at no stage in the cake making process is it alive.

But it should also be pointed out that the planet is replete with organism that "spontaneously assemble themselves" and are "alive". So while you trot out such characteristics, it becomes quickly clear they are not actually the characteristics of any actual relevance.

You are trotting out attributes, none of which anyone here even appears to be disagreeing with, but not in any way actually tying them down to anything, or tying anything down WITH them.

jill_valentine

RobertKK wrote: »

The case for abortion and killing the unborn, can also be made for infanticide.

If it's never even occurred to you there's a conscious living woman wrapped around the foetus in question, yes, sure it can.

Dressing gown

Charmeleon wrote: »

Cakes don’t spontaneously assemble themselves and do not carry ‘cake DNA’ that it shares with all of cakedom. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that at no stage in the cake making process is it alive. Someone gathers ingredients and makes them into something they might never have become part of. A human develops after conception, is a living being and carries both a unique human genome and a shared genetic heritage with all of us.

Well, the placenta has the exact same DNA as the foetus. It too is alive. It is not mourned in our culture. It is in others. It too has embryonic stem cells capable of differentiation into many different tissue types (which is why some people freeze their placenta and umbilical cord and why my umbilical cord was donated to research to enable science to eventually be able to grow perfectly matched bodily organs but that’s another story). The difference between the placenta and the foetus is that one develops into a person and the other dies after the baby is born. That’s the whole point. The foetus is not yet a person. It is developing into a person. It is fully dependent on its mother. It does have a right to exist but only if the mother and no one else deems it so (I’m talking pre-viability). It should not have an equal right to life to that of a fully sentient human being, unless it’s mother deems it so. The mother has to come first. She should decide whether the foetus has a greater or lesser or equal right to life. The constitution should not provide for enforced pregnancy.

An Ciarraioch

Turnout reportedly higher than at same time in 2015 - 25% in parts of Dublin, 17-21% in Kerry at lunchtime.

spacecoyote

Charmeleon wrote: »

I am starting to think the only thing you are certain of is that your position is correct and words mean anything you want them to. To dehumanise is to deprive of human qualities and attributes, the fetus in its genetic makeup and its relationship with its parents has human qualities and attributes that a cow fetus does not.

Would it make it easier for you to accept my position if I said that I'm happy for someone to make their own decision about whether or not to abort their child or baby, because:

"I'm happy for someone to make their own decision about whether or not to abort their child or baby"

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Turnout reportedly higher than at same time in 2015 - 25% in parts of Dublin, 17-21% in Kerry at lunchtime.

General Election level turnout. If this keeps up, it'll be a big Yes win.

IvoryTower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

General Election level turnout. If this keeps up, it'll be a big Yes win.

what makes you say that?

Charmeleon

Dressing gown wrote: »

Well, the placenta has the exact same DNA as the foetus. It too is alive. It is not mourned in our culture. It is in others. It too has embryonic stem cells capable of differentiation into many different tissue types (which is why some people freeze their placenta and umbilical cord and why my umbilical cord was donated to research to enable science to eventually be able to grow perfectly matched bodily organs but that’s another story). The difference between the placenta and the foetus is that one develops into a person and the other dies after the baby is born. That’s the whole point. The foetus is not yet a person. It is developing into a person. It is fully dependent on its mother. It does have a right to exist but only if the mother and no one else deems it so (I’m talking pre-viability). It should not have an equal right to life to that of a fully sentient human being, unless it’s mother deems it so. The mother has to come first. She should decide whether the foetus has a greater or lesser or equal right to life. The constitution should not provide for enforced pregnancy.

The placenta has its own life cycle that, as you say, comes to its natural conclusion shortly after birth. Birth is the end of the cycle for the placenta but is only another process for the baby. Of course abortion prematurely ends the life cycle of both. I am not stating either that the human qualities I mentioned are exhaustive. I’d be interested in any other candidates you can think of.

Zubeneschamali

IvoryTower wrote: »

what makes you say that?

All the polling had Yes ahead. All of it. No never got close.

So people looking for a No win have been saying things like "Older voters skew No, and they vote reliably, whereas Young voters may not bother". But if we see turnout at General Election levels, that hope that oldsters will vote and no-one else will bother is gone.

The other possibility was that all the Don't Knows were secret No voters who would sneakily vote and the Yes cohort would not. That is also not happening - big turnout in Dublin with the highest yes affiliation. Huge percentages of the supplementary register voting early - these votes skew young and yes.

It is still early, but I am thinking my 55-45 win for Yes prediction is low.

Zubeneschamali

Charmeleon wrote: »

The placenta has its own life cycle that, as you say, comes to its natural conclusion shortly after birth..

But what about its DNA - the same as the fetus, from the same moment of conception?

How come it is not a human being, or part of one?

IvoryTower

okay thanks i hope you're right.

end of the road

sydthebeat wrote: »

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.

there can and are equal rights afforded to both. it is happening right now and it works. nobody is sacrificed for the unborn, it just doesn't happen. doctors will do their best for their patients as is their job. where they don't, then there are procedures in place. we do take care of our women, as well as their babies first.

spacecoyote wrote: »

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.

well no what is being asked is if one wishes to repeal the 8th amendment or not. any law will to an extent add 1 person's morals over another, as people will disagree or agree with a law. that cannot ultimately be avoided.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in your opinion it's exportation for basic health care. in mine and many others, (more like in reality if we are honest) they are choosing to go abroad for what is in most cases not basic health care. so it's not truely exportation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

Dressing gown wrote: »

I’m not totally sure what you are getting at, but my point is this. Saying something is human is not the same as saying it is a person. Both placenta and foetus are human, but neither are people. The placenta is the “unborn” too. No one has given a figs about whether it has an equal right to life to that of the mother. The 8th amendment is a joke. I have greater respect for my constitution to have absurd protections in it. If the 8th is maintained I will bring this argument to the politicians to demonstrate the nonsense that is the 8th amendment.

The placenta is an organ of the fetus, attached via the umbilical cord. Part of an indivudual human being (two if it starts developing before identical twins split). When it is cut away after birth it does not qualify for ‘the right to life’ in the way that individual humans do.

An Ciarraioch

Judging by Gavan Reilly and Richard Chambers on Twitter, we could well see GE-level turnout, reports of 33-40% already!

Zubeneschamali

Charmeleon wrote: »

When it is cut away after birth it does not qualify for ‘the right to life’ in the way that individual humans do.

Heartless! Unfeeling!


Equal rights for placentas!

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Judging by Gavan Reilly and Richard Chambers on Twitter, we could well see GE-level turnout, reports of 33-40% already!

So much for the faint No hope that the young would not turn out.

LuckyLloyd

Turnout slowing significantly as the day wears on...

Sierra Oscar

I reckon we're going to see 60% yes, perhaps even approaching 65%.

LuckyLloyd

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I reckon we're going to see 60% yes, perhaps even approaching 65%.

I want to believe this, and early turnout data was very positive to a larger than expected Yes win, but turnout data is less solid circa 6pm and trending in a negative direction

Sierra Oscar

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I want to believe this, and early turnout data was very positive to a larger than expected Yes win, but turnout data is less solid circa 6pm and trending in a negative direction

The yes campaign are worried about complacency this evening, that's why they are putting that message out and fair play.

Turnout is fine though, it'll be well above average.

An Ciarraioch

One startling tweet by John Kilraine of RTE - 65% in Blanchardstown.

Ronan|Raven

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I want to believe this, and early turnout data was very positive to a larger than expected Yes win, but turnout data is less solid circa 6pm and trending in a negative direction

Dublin has been gridlocked since 3pm. It was picking up a lot in Bray as of a while ago.

Loafing Oaf

Anyone know when the Irish times exit poll is due? Should be the first clear indication of how things have gone...

Enzokk

Irish Times exit poll projects Ireland has voted by landslide to repeal Eighth Amendment

Ireland has voted by a landslide margin to change the constitution so that abortion can be legalised, according to an exit poll conducted for The Irish Times by Ipsos/MRBI.

The poll suggests that the margin of victory for the Yes side in yesterday’s referendum will be 68 per cent to 32 per cent – a stunning victory for the Yes side after a long and often divisive campaign.

Landslide victory for YES

meeeeh

Brilliant

LuckyLloyd

:):):):):)

Gbear

If that's accurate I'm amazed and hugely impressed by the people of this country.

wheresmahbombs

Boy, am I glad that the majority is voting yes. It's about time women should be able to simply just get an abortion if they want, without having to travel to another country in order to do so.

JaMarcus

87% of 18-24 year olds voted Yes.

Fantastic.

Enzokk

The RTE poll has it at 69.4% Yes and 30.6% No.

RTÉ exit poll on the Eighth Amendment projects: Yes 69.4% No 30.6%

https://twitter.com/RTELateLateShow/status/1000139317166133250

uck51js9zml2yt

JaMarcus wrote: »

87% of 18-24 year olds voted Yes.

Fantastic.

Sadly most of these won't vote again in the next election.
It was the same with the marriage equality. They came out in numbers and then stayed in bed for the general election