The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Birdie Num Num

Seriously posting that photo of kids and aligning those comments to those same kids is way out of order.

Madscientist30

Sorry I didn't mean to quote the picture myself and can't seem to undo it now. Seriously think it should be removed.

Billy86

Well I'm curious as to their take given it happened in (edit) Paraguay quite recently.

And yes I know it might seem low in that regard, but anti-repeal people will have no issue with that given it's par for the course with them.

As for the image, I googled '4th class Ireland' and plucked it from the results.

amdublin

Billy86 wrote: »

Well I'm curious as to their take given it happened in Venezuela quite recently.

And yes I know it might seem low in that regard, but anti-repeal people will have no issue with that given it's par for the course with them.

As for the image, I googled '4th class Ireland' and plucked it from the results.

I'm pro repeal and i have an issue with It!!!

Jaysis

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Well I'm curious as to their take given it happened in (edit) Paraguay quite recently.

And yes I know it might seem low in that regard, but anti-repeal people will have no issue with that given it's par for the course with them.

As for the image, I googled '4th class Ireland' and plucked it from the results.

Billy think of their parents and if they read your post. Leave this type of sh1te to the PLC side

amdublin

Nah. I'm out Billy86

Too far. Too far.

And I'm pro choice and pro repeal.

mohawk

For those of you that have never been pregnant or given birth it is hard to explain the effect that the 8th has on a pregnancy and subsequent delivery. For those of us that have.... well we have experienced the 8th.

It makes me angry when I talk to my friends who have given birth abroad they have such a different experience to me and my friends that had our children here.

Look at the Csection rate in this country it is too high.WHO recommends the rate should be between 10-15 %. Speak to the women in your lives many of them will tell you it was decided by the doctors that they would have a section and they were given no choice. Ask the women who wanted to deliver naturally on their second pregnancy after having a section on their first and were told no.

Midwives and doctors do not need the consent of the mother for any intervention that takes place. Some interventions are not evidence based (e.g. routine rupture of membranes or episiotomy) but they appear to be hospital policy based on a desire to expedite labour and birth and clear a bed for the next woman.

Repealing the 8th is about more then abortion.

NuMarvel

Billy86 wrote: »

And yes I know it might seem low in that regard, but anti-repeal people will have no issue with that given it's par for the course with them.

There's no might. It was low. That No groups might have done it is usually a good guide for NOT doing it.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Billy86 is banned.

I don't know how anybody in their right mind could think what he posted was acceptable.

volchitsa

ForestFire wrote: »

Again I never said 8 weeks?

I said 6 to 8 weeks.

Last time I looked, "8 to 6 weeks" includes the number 8, right?
So how on earth you think I've misquoted you is something of a mystery.

ForestFire wrote: »

So you think it could be even as low as 4 weeks? That's fine but try not to miss quote me.

So I guess for this reason you see no possibilty to reduce the 12 weeks?

Again that's fine for me also as things currently stand.

It could be far less than 4 weeks, after all some women/girls discover they are pregnant when they go into labour so obviously there's no upper limit for discovering a pregnancy until it ends!

So no, what I was actually saying, and what I think I said, was that for a 12 week limit, then considering that a woman would have up to 8 weeks of knowing she was pregnant is not realistic, a 6 week period is more likely the upper limit for most women. 4-6 is probably standard.

But my real point was that, going by what happens in most European countries, that 12 week limit still seems to be sufficient - but of course in Ireland we have a dodgy record on this with Ms Y.

ForestFire

volchitsa wrote: »

Last time I looked, "8 to 6 weeks" includes the number 8, right?
So how on earth you think I've misquoted you is something of a mystery.
.

Because 6 to 8 weeks is a range, from best case 8 weeks to worst case 6 weeks.
(And you and others think it actually 4 weeks (Worst case), which again I said is fine)

But..... you implied I said 8 Weeks only!!!..why did you leave out the 6??

That is a miss quote, as you did not included my whole quote, which makes it look like I said something worse than what I actually said, because I actually said it may be only 6 weeks worst case (not 8).

As I said I have no problem with people asking to clarify or to question something, but please do not miss quote to make things seem different, that is all.

TomSweeney

robarmstrong wrote: »

Reposting this so it's on the first page.


"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Great post !!

volchitsa

ForestFire wrote: »

Because 6 to 8 weeks is a range, from best case 8 weeks to worst case 6 weeks.
(And you and others think it actually 4 weeks (Worst case), which again I said is fine)

But..... you implied I said 8 Weeks only!!!..why did you leave out the 6??

That is a miss quote, as you did not included my whole quote, which makes it look like I said something worse than what I actually said, because I actually said it may be only 6 weeks worst case (not 8).

As I said I have no problem with people asking to clarify or to question something, but please do not miss quote to make things seem different, that is all.

No I didnt misquote you, I explained why I think your upper limit is far too long, so your 8 to 6 weeks is wrong. More like 4 to 6, and even then some women will have a lot less than that, for all sorts of perfectly ordinary reasons, like "anniversary bleeding" where the first couple of missed periods may not be entirely missed, and a younger - or pre menopausal - woman may not realize what is going on.

So 12 weeks really is the minimum for women to have enough time. It will be plenty for many, but not for all. That said, it seems to work in places like Spain and France, so I would tend to go by real life examples, rather than hypotheticals.

Out of curiosity, why did you start with 8 (ie 8 to 6) if you are now saying you didn't actually mean 8? Wouldn't 6-8 be a more usual way of putting it?

nozzferrahhtoo

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't think trees are animals are relevant to the discussion on human life and a bit dismissive to be honest.

Things being inconvenient to your narrative do not render them irrelevant however. Nor does your missing the point of them being brought up. But I can clarify the point yet further if needs be to prevent YOU being the one who is actually being dismissive here.

The point is that our planet is teeming with life. Life that has also often been fertilised and implanted. Yet we end life all the time.

So it seems to me that when one type of life, or one particular entity, is being protected from what we do all the time, then it must have attributes that the other life does not.

The inconvenient truth for the anti-choice narrative is that when we identify exactly what those attributes are.... they turn out to be precisely the attributes the fetus does not have, has never had, and is a distinct period of time away from getting.

ForestFire wrote: »

But I'm not disagreeing with you, as you said yourself it's a 'grey' area for you after 20 weeks.

You might want to read what I wrote again, because you have modified it. Where and why you have chosen to modify it is also something that is quite informative and revealing. Especially given how many times since this post you have moaned about being misquoted.

However in the post just before the one you are replying to for example I said "Incrementally after 24 weeks we get more and more grey about the possibility of sentience having come on line." and "As I said there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really."

Ask yourself why you feel the need to subtract relatively large chunks of time from what I actually said before then muddying what it was that i actually said. Honest introspection on that move might reveal much to yourself about your own agenda and motivations.

ForestFire wrote: »

while I don't agree with you about 20 weeks or someone else about embryo stage, I respect that is your belief.

It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has everything to do with what the facts actually are. And the facts actually are that the attributes that are relevant to things like rights, morality and ethics are wholly and entirely missing in such a fetus.

ForestFire wrote: »

For me personally I'm not even sure how many weeks I would believe or be comfortable with, as to where life really starts.

Your mistake is to approach it in terms of what makes you "comfortable". That is subjective emotion, nor rationality. The correct approach is to start by defining exactly what you mean by "Life" and come up with a definition of "Life" that is actually morally and ethically relevant in the context used.

Then simply find out when and where that definition actually applies. And accept that answer no matter how emotionally pleasant or unpleasant it happens to be. Personal (dis)comfort should not come into it at all.

ForestFire wrote: »

I'm also not sure there is a need to go beyond 12 weeks? As this should be time enough to decide if it is required?

As I said, if I woke up in an Ireland with choice based abortion available at 12 weeks, I would not suffer too much loss of sleep for it. In countries with limits like the UK, or theoretical no limits like Canada.... we find that the figures for abortions in or before week 12 go up over 90%. I would certainly PREFER 16 as it gets that figure up to near 100%, but I would be generally accepting of 12 myself. And I see no reason from the perspective of the fetus to be concerned with 20 or 24 either. But there are other issues, such as the medical complications of later term abortions, that would bring my concerns on line in the 20-24 week window.

That is, of course, for abortion by choice. Abortion by some other form of medical or contextual necessity is a different kettle of fish.

Madscientist30

This is a long but really interesting read on the ethics of abortion:
https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/Messerly20160517

ForestFire

volchitsa wrote: »

No I didnt misquote you, I explained why I think your upper limit is far too long, so your 8 to 6 weeks is wrong. More like 4 to 6, and even then some women will have a lot less than that, for all sorts of perfectly ordinary reasons, like "anniversary bleeding" where the first couple of missed periods may not be entirely missed, and a younger - or pre menopausal - woman may not realize what is going on.

So 12 weeks really is the minimum for women to have enough time. It will be plenty for many, but not for all. That said, it seems to work in places like Spain and France, so I would tend to go by real life examples, rather than hypotheticals.

Out of curiosity, why did you start with 8 (ie 8 to 6) if you are now saying you didn't actually mean 8? Wouldn't 6-8 be a more usual way of putting it?

Ye are so paranoid in here it's unbelievably.

You never said 8 weeks was my upper limit, you just said 8, therefore miss quote.

You never said why you left out the 6?

It's a range, 6 to 8 equals 8 to 6 and there's no other reason, and don't even remember why I done it that way, but I'm sure you think I'm trying some trick of words. I don't have time for that, I'm typing on a phone most of the time.

I'm sure you all just waiting/expecting for me to actually turn into a full pro life poster....

As I said I am inclined to agree with 12 weeks anyway just that it would be my upper limit.

ForestFire

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Things being inconvenient to your narrative do not render them irrelevant however. Nor does your missing the point of them being brought up. But I can clarify the point yet further if needs be to prevent YOU being the one who is actually being dismissive here.

The point is that our planet is teeming with life. Life that has also often been fertilised and implanted. Yet we end life all the time.

So it seems to me that when one type of life, or one particular entity, is being protected from what we do all the time, then it must have attributes that the other life does not.

The inconvenient truth for the anti-choice narrative is that when we identify exactly what those attributes are.... they turn out to be precisely the attributes the fetus does not have, has never had, and is a distinct period of time away from getting.



You might want to read what I wrote again, because you have modified it. Where and why you have chosen to modify it is also something that is quite informative and revealing. Especially given how many times since this post you have moaned about being misquoted.

However in the post just before the one you are replying to for example I said "Incrementally after 24 weeks we get more and more grey about the possibility of sentience having come on line." and "As I said there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really."

Ask yourself why you feel the need to subtract relatively large chunks of time from what I actually said before then muddying what it was that i actually said. Honest introspection on that move might reveal much to yourself about your own agenda and motivations.



It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has everything to do with what the facts actually are. And the facts actually are that the attributes that are relevant to things like rights, morality and ethics are wholly and entirely missing in such a fetus.



Your mistake is to approach it in terms of what makes you "comfortable". That is subjective emotion, nor rationality. The correct approach is to start by defining exactly what you mean by "Life" and come up with a definition of "Life" that is actually morally and ethically relevant in the context used.

Then simply find out when and where that definition actually applies. And accept that answer no matter how emotionally pleasant or unpleasant it happens to be. Personal (dis)comfort should not come into it at all.



As I said, if I woke up in an Ireland with choice based abortion available at 12 weeks, I would not suffer too much loss of sleep for it. In countries with limits like the UK, or theoretical no limits like Canada.... we find that the figures for abortions in or before week 12 go up over 90%. I would certainly PREFER 16 as it gets that figure up to near 100%, but I would be generally accepting of 12 myself. And I see no reason from the perspective of the fetus to be concerned with 20 or 24 either. But there are other issues, such as the medical complications of later term abortions, that would bring my concerns on line in the 20-24 week window.

That is, of course, for abortion by choice. Abortion by some other form of medical or contextual necessity is a different kettle of fish.

Ha ha more paranoia.

Sorry I miss quoted your number, believe it or no it was not intentional.

But the point I was making is you think 24week, someone else 20 weeks, me 12weeks and someone else embryo, as their grey area, and we all have different reasons for this.

I was just making the point that there is grey areas for everyone.

Again sorry to miss quote you number.

I can and have listened to you sentience argument which is fine, but as a society we have deemed human life more important to animal and certainly plants, so for me it is dismissive and a completely separate argument.

It's still a human embryo, not an animal or tree embryo and sentience is just one of many stages that may or may not be the correct stage to use.

It may turn out to be the correct one, I'm not doubting that, but others have different criteria that I also respect, even if I don't agree, and in the end the majority will decide.

nozzferrahhtoo

ForestFire wrote: »

Ha ha more paranoia.

Or more of your using empty buzz words to not actually reply to what people wrote. I think the paranoia is your own though in that you make personal all replies. In psychology we call this "projection". It is where you at some level note an emotion or behaviour in yourself, but then imagine it in others so you can criticise it there, rather than in yourself.

But when you write something like "I'm sure you all just waiting/expecting for me to actually turn into a full pro life poster...." you make it about you personally. Which no one else is doing. So the paranoia is your own. Rather what people like myself are doing is rebutting concepts in your posts, concepts often expressed by pro-life posters. And it is not about you. At all. Even a little bit.

ForestFire wrote: »

But the point I was making is you think 24week, someone else 20 weeks, me 12weeks and someone else embryo, as their grey area, and we all have different reasons for this.

Exactly and in the post I wrote that is exactly what I was talking about. When this happens the correct approach is to go a level deeper. Examine the definitions they are using. The reasoning. The context. And decide whether what they are espousing is actually relevant or coherent.

I have explained EXACTLY why I believe what I do, and where and why my concerns come on line. You however speak of 12 weeks without explaining it that much at all. Other than to appeal to what you personally are emotionally comfortable with. Which, as I said, is a very poor approach to the topic indeed.

So all these "gray areas" are not automatically equivalent or equally coherent. I think one danger of your rhetoric is it pretends they are. As if he has his opinion, I have mine, she has hers, and you have your own.... and they are all equally credible or valid. They are not. So a big "So what" hangs over you writing sentences like "I was just making the point that there is grey areas for everyone."

ForestFire wrote: »

I can and have listened to you sentience argument which is fine, but as a society we have deemed human life more important to animal and certainly plants, so for me it is dismissive and a completely separate argument.

Quite the opposite. It is not dismissive or separate at all. Rather it recognises not just the existence of the argument but the basis of it. We can all sit around "deeming" Human Life to be more important. But that is lazy. Go one further and ask yourself WHY we have done so. Going deeper into an assertion is the exact opposite of "dismissive". Simply accepting or asserting the position however. THAT is being dismissive. Again with the projection I guess.... the accusing of others of doing what in fact only you are doing.

ForestFire wrote: »

It may turn out to be the correct one, I'm not doubting that, but others have different criteria that I also respect, even if I don't agree, and in the end the majority will decide.

I do not respect opinions, I respect the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind them. I will not respect their criteria, nor should I, just because they have one. I can only sit down and ask them "Why do you think that, and why do you think it is relevant?".

And it is consistently amazing to me how many people simply do not know. They think what they think because they think it. No other reason than that. And the only thing more baffling than that reality, is the fact that this does not seem to bother them at all. That their most cherished opinions has no basis in argument, evidence, data or reasoning and their only defence of it is to become emotional or hostile.

ForestFire

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.
Other than to appeal to what you personally are emotionally comfortable with. Which, as I said, is a very poor approach to the topic indeed.

Comfortable with the facts on when life begins...

Please show me where I said anything about emotions? You have just assumed that you see.

The paranoia is from experience in this thread and the miss quote after miss quote and trying to catch someone out and believe they have some motive.

When you said I miss quoted you, I apologised I simply corrected myself.

When I was miss quoted there are further comments like...

But there is a 8 in 6 to 8?
Why did you say 8 to 6?
It's very revealing?

volchitsa

ForestFire wrote: »

Ye are so paranoid in here it's unbelievably.

You never said 8 weeks was my upper limit, you just said 8, therefore miss quote.

You never said why you left out the 6?

I left out the 6 because it wasnt the bit I had an issue with. As I think my post made clear, I agreed that 6 weeks was fairly likely, but was more like the upper limit - and you'd have seen that if you hadn't thrown a wobbly.

I wouldn't agree with 7 either, which is within your range, for the same reason but you aren't complaining about that, why not?

It's a range, 6 to 8 equals 8 to 6 and there's no other reason, and don't even remember why I done it that way, but I'm sure you think I'm trying some trick of words. I don't have time for that, I'm typing on a phone most of the time.

No I'm just wondering why you're so demanding that other posters quote you exactly, but your own foibles are all perfectly understandable to any reasonable person. Especially when you made up a number completely, where I just dealt with the number that I found most problematic in your post, and left the other aside.

I still don't believe that is misquoting.

I'm sure you all just waiting/expecting for me to actually turn into a full pro life poster....

I haven't made any comment about your views, so I get the feeling, as was suggested by someone, that you are projecting fiercely here.

Your repeated talk about everyone else "all" doing or thinking the same thing, as though you were a lone warrior fighting a group is bizarre TBH.

We're all individuals, and I'm not in contact with anyone else here, I only speak for myself.

As I said I am inclined to agree with 12 weeks anyway just that it would be my upper limit.

Ok. I'm still not sure why that, or rather 10 weeks which was what you said earlier, would be such a barrier foryou. But I'm more puzzled about the degree of paranoia on display.

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

Comfortable with the facts on when life begins...

Please show me where I said anything about emotions? You have just assumed that you see.

The paranoia is from experience in this thread and the miss quote after miss quote and trying to catch someone out and believe they have some motive.

When you said I miss quoted you, I apologised I simply corrected myself.

When I was miss quoted there are further comments like...

But there is a 8 in 6 to 8?
Why did you say 8 to 6?
It's very revealing?

Not really. Dunno what you are upset about tbh.

Sofiztikated

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not really. Dunno what you are upset about tbh.

Why is 6 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.

Hahaha. Right, can we move on from that pointless point?

nozzferrahhtoo

ForestFire wrote: »

Comfortable with the facts on when life begins...

And as I said, it pays to be exact about what stages of "life" You mean, and why you think they matter. None of which I am seeing from you. Nor any willingness to engage with it.

The source of your lack of "comfort" with 12 weeks is currently opaque to me. And you do not see readily inclined to elaborate on it meaningfully.

ForestFire wrote: »

Please show me where I said anything about emotions? You have just assumed that you see.

Please do keep up, I explained this already. I was referring to you speaking of what you are "comfortable with". And I explained at some length why it should have nothing to do with comfort and everything to do with the facts and definitions. That is what I speak of when I am talking about emotional conclusions.

Nor is there any reason we should be "comfortable with" any of it. Abortion is usually a last resort, often performed by women under stress or duress or emotional trauma. And I doubt there are any doctors engaged with the topic who skip into work joyfully looking forward to their day. We can and SHOULD feel mightily uncomfortable about the whole affair and the context. But it should not inform our policy or what we believe the right thing to do is.

ForestFire wrote: »

When I was miss quoted there are further comments like...

And you should take that up with them, not me. But I still do not see how the word paranoia applies. I think you are just using that word to hide behind. But as I said when you make it about you, then the only one fitting any definitions of paranoia I know of IS you.

bertieinexile

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Irrelevant. What it "looks like" is not as important as what it actually is. Discuss that, rather than rely on pictures you wish/hope will do your work for you.



Again, relevance? You really appear to be relying solely on arguments from emotion rather than bringing any intellect to bear on the discussion at all. In fact I can only assume that the advances in our technology will continue to the point we will have 3 year olds running around that were removed from the womb at 12 weeks, forget 23. Or perhaps even 3 year olds running around that were never at any point in an actual womb at all. But the relevance of this to your point or the thread is not apparent OTHER than my suspicion that the emotions triggered by 3 year olds in us is something you want to transfer to the fetus in an attempt to manipulate the emotions of those to whom you have ZERO intellectual arguments to offer.



Good, because you would fail. There is nothing "bad" about what I said.



Reluctant to do what exactly? As I said there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really. However I balance my beliefs about abortion with many other aspects of reality, including the fact that the near totality of choice based abortion happens in or before week 16. I therefore aim for 16 weeks in my rhetoric. But I would not complain if abortions were brought into Ireland at 12 or 20 weeks either. Later abortions concern me however for other reasons such as the stark increase in complications for the mother. Both in the short and long term.

Incrementally after 24 weeks we get more and more grey about the possibility of sentience having come on line.

So really it is not clear why, during my absence, you decided to bring me into this diatribe at all. You clearly think you have a point to make on the thread in this post but I genuinely am not seeing what it is. But, unless I missed it which can happen, you do not appear to have deigned to reply to my last post to you. And this shift from talking with me to talking ABOUT me is more than a little suspect.

Hi nozzferrahhtoo

Fascinating stuff.

Once again here is what we are talking about, an ultrasound of a child (my term) in the womb at 24 weeks.
https://youtu.be/3ekjvgE5mo4?t=31s

I have had a hard time trying to establish for myself what your views on taking such a life are. That's not because you haven't said what they are but because to me and I think to a lot of people they come across as very extreme. It's hard to credit them on first reading.

Before I start I think it is really important to remind everyone, from casual readers of the thread to regular posters, that this question of abortions performed on demand up to 24 weeks is not some abstruse and esoteric point. It's exactly what you are being asked to vote on on May 25.

A Yes vote would be followed soon after
by Marie Stopes clinics in Ireland performing abortions on demand up to 24 weeks with an unwavering disregard for whatever the law might say
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618767&postcount=3034
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106630405&postcount=3257

and with varying degrees of professional competence
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106608099&postcount=2827



You have said nozzferrahhtoo that

there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really.

As I've said above killing these children (again my term) is what the upcoming vote is about.
I'd be happy to talk about this statement of reality, and revisit all the points I linked to above, every day from now until the end of May

I think most people, if they accept this as what they are voting on, will find it easy to make up their minds.
But I take it noozzferrahto that, unlike them, you have no objection to the principle, at least, of abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

Again

there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really.

Nearly all of your posts are making the same point explicitly or implicitly; you believe that what most people feel when they see the ultrasound video above - that they are looking at a fellow human being - is irrelevant. It doesn't count for anything. Unless those feelings can somehow be turned in to an objective criterion for personhood, they don't matter.

(The following quote is in response to ForestFire who in relation to the "grey area" "where life really starts" says "[for] me 12weeks" but "others have different criteria")

I will not respect their criteria, nor should I, just because they have one. .. [for] many people... their most cherished opinions has no basis in argument, evidence, data or reasoning and their only defence of it is to become emotional or hostile.

I hope that's a fair representation of the full quote.

You are heavily committed to the idea of a reductive, scientifically measurable and quantifiable definition of what it is to be a human being. I don't doubt for a minute your sincerity in that or how integral it is to your view of the world and who you are.




I don't want to corner you in what follows so don't feel any need to respond. It would be perfectly understandable. This isn't the place to explore deeply personal questions like this.

I think I'm right in saying that your reason for accepting the killing of children (my term) at 24 weeks is based on the idea of sentience. I don't know if you've said it explicitly but I'm assuming, because of your focus on 24 weeks, that sentience in this case is reduced to being able to observe regular wave patterns in fetal brain activity on an EEG - or at least it requires that.
Can you confirm that?
Can you confirm that whatever constitutes your definition of sentience - which for you just starts to open the door to a right to life - doesn't usually begin any earlier than 24 weeks?

Clearly no one, not even Simon Harris, is proposing killing children outside the womb at 24 weeks. His mad legislation is only proposing killing them in the womb at 24 weeks (and in reality that would be on demand/request).
But right now I'd just like to focus on the problems I have with your own personal view of what constitutes a human being, nozzferrahhtoo.
To be clear I think it highly unlikely any other pro choice poster on here shares these views.
This is just a conversation between you and me about your own particular views.

If you look at this video of a 23 week old child who was prematurely delivered
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
(and who is now a happy 3 year old) it is more than likely, lying there at 23 weeks in the incubator, that his brain activity would not yet exhibit the regular wave patterns which (I think) you require for sentience. On average that would take at least another week or two.

At this stage, hooked up to those tubes, he still doesn't satisfy your definition of a human being with a right to life. .....I'm not even going to write the rest of this ... You can see where it's going

I hope I'm wrong but reading this

there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really.

the logical consequences of what you've said for the treatment of that child in the incubator are disturbing. Is it time to modify your belief about what constitutes a human being with the right to life? You are hardly ready to defend someone doing to this child in the incubator what to the rest of us is the unthinkable. (There was no regular wave pattern brain activity. He wasn't sentient. He wasn't a human being.) Please tell me I'm wrong.

On the other hand If you're ready to grab on to your harpoon and go down with that whale, good luck.
But you have a definition of what it means to be a human being that implies the acceptance of behaviour that is completely at odds with how most human beings would ever behave.


I enjoy the civil tone you bring to the discussion nozzferrahhtoo. It's a pleasure to be able to explore these questions with you.

ohnonotgmail

Before I start I think it is really important to remind everyone, from casual readers of the thread to regular posters, that this question of abortions performed on demand up to 24 weeks is not some abstruse and esoteric point. It's exactly what you are being asked to vote on on May 25.

about as blatant a lie as i've seen on this thread.

Kurtosis

I think it is really important to remind everyone, from casual readers of the thread to regular posters, that claims with no reputable sources provided (such as bertie's above regarding termination up to 24 weeks) can safely be dismissed as baseless speculation. Anyone interested in the facts of what is proposed if the referendum is passed can read it on the Department of Health's website here (link to document at bottom of that page).

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

A Yes vote would be followed soon after
by Marie Stopes clinics in Ireland performing abortions on demand up to 24 weeks with an unwavering disregard for whatever the law might say.

Again your posting unbelievable bullsh1t here.

Edit: I'm actually to tired to put in any further effort on my post in relation to this, any casual or new reader to the thread with a bit of intelligence knows the above statement has been made without actual proof etc because it's just bulls1t.

G'night to all.

bertieinexile

DubInMeath wrote: »

bertieinexile wrote:

A Yes vote would be followed soon after
by Marie Stopes clinics in Ireland performing abortions on demand up to 24 weeks with an unwavering disregard for whatever the law might say.

Again your posting unbelievable bullsh1t here.

Edit: I'm actually to tired to put in any further effort on my post in relation to this, any casual or new reader to the thread with a bit of intelligence knows the above statement has been made without actual proof etc because it's just bulls1t.

G'night to all.

I hope at this stage no one would think I would post a statement like

this question of abortions performed on demand up to 24 weeks is... exactly what you are being asked to vote on on May 25.

without backing it up with links. I tried to take care of that by referring to three earlier posts I had made which I believed used good relevant links to make a pretty convicing case for that statement.
If there have been posts refuting the points I made there please point me towards them. I must have missed them the first time.


The fact that people don't seem to be aware of these points may be down to the fact that they were scattered over a few posts and were raised during back and forths with different posters.
This seems a like a great opportunity to gather those points together in one post where they can be easily referred to in future.




In the event of a Yes vote the proposed legislation outlined in the published General Scheme
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf
would be passed.

How do we know?
The Irish Times has very helpfully determined, as far as it could, how each TD would vote on abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times has 67 in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs.
Plus every party leader is in favour.
Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum.
Can anyone argue that the scheme would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

The published schedule would be approved.




The most used grounds for abortion in england concern the mental health of the mother. (97% of cases)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf page 15 sections 2.14, 2.15

The only difference in the proposed mental health grounds for abortion here from 12 weeks to viability and the english grounds up to 24 weeks, is that our proposed law talks about
"risk...of serious harm to the (physical or mental) health of the woman"
and the english one talks about
"greater risk than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"
And on that distinction rests all claims that there would not be abortion on demand/request up to ~24 weeks.


The distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" could keep a few of our learned friends on Ormond Quay in business for ever.
But what matters is whether that distinction is going to make any difference to doctors signing certs in a Marie Stopes clinic.
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.

Here's what they are like

Marie Stopes was subject to 2600 complaints in 2016.

Here is how they deal with the mental health grounds

Doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One filled in up to 26 in two minutes.

and as you can see from this link nothing has changed.

Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

Here's another link

Doctors are routinely bending the law to allow women to have abortions on questionable mental-health grounds, the head of Britain’s biggest abortion provider has said.


The point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" won't matter a damn to Marie Stopes. Check the three links above.


If the doctor who signs off never even sees you will it make a damn bit of difference to him if the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

If "approvals are based on only a one-line summary of what a woman tells a call centre worker who has no medical training, .....and the telephone discussions can be as short as 22 seconds" do you really think it matters whether the law was looking for "injury" or "serious harm".

If "the official note of the woman's reason for having the abortion can be completely different from what she had said on the phone" do you think it matters whether the law said "injury" or "serious harm".

If all you have to tell them is ‘I just don’t want the baby’ and then they "do the legal side of things" for you does it sound like they give a toss whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm".

Read this dialogue between a woman looking for an abortion and Marie Stopes.
Does it sound like Marie Stopes give a tinkers curse whether the law says "injury" or "serious harm" or just because it's Tuesday.
As long as there's any unquantifiable grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks they'll give you one just for asking.

FIRST CONSULTATION
Call centre: OK, so first of all, are you sure of your decision?
Reporter: Yeah.
CC: And what are your reasons for requesting a termination, please?
R: Um… I mean, I just don’t want to have the baby.
CC: Yeah? So it’s just not the right time for you at the moment, or…?
R: Yeah, yeah. Exactly, yeah.
CC: Yeah? That’s fine. That will come under ‘emotional reasons’.
R: You have to have permission from two doctors for an abortion… I just wondered when that happens and whether I need to see two doctors on the day?
CC: No, that’s absolutely fine. Just looking at your notes there it says you’re a self-referral, so you don’t need to be referred by your doctors.
R: Right, so in terms of… because it says, um, you know, you have to give your reasons? And two doctors have to agree?
CC: Yeah, so that’ll be our doctors. So you’ve given me your reason now, which comes under emotional reasons, and then our two doctors will sign this, and you’ll be OK to go ahead with the treatment.
R: So when I go on the day, I don’t have to explain my reason again?
CC: No, that’s absolutely fine, no.
SECOND CONSULTATION
R: I read that you need to see two doctors before you have…
CC: No, you’ll just, you’ll see the surgeon on the day, OK, all right? And they’ll assess your medical and obstetric history.
R: OK. So it’s just about my health? Someone told me you have to convince two doctors of your reasons?
CC: No, no, no. You’ve already done that, OK? We’ve done your consultation, OK? And we’ve gone through the legal side of things. Our two doctors will sign it. You don’t need to convince anybody, OK? All right?
R: Right – so I won’t have to talk, I don’t talk to him about my reason?
CC: No, no, not at all. We’ve already documented your reason, OK? We’ve already done the legal side of things.
R: Oh, OK… because somebody told me that two doctors have to agree and you have to explain your reasons to them.
CC: Yeah, no. You’ve already done all that, OK... the only thing you’ll need to do on the day is to sign your consent form.
R: OK, that’s really helpful... I didn’t realise it could be done, sort of, behind the scenes.
CC: Yeah, yeah. It’s done before. This is why you have your phone consultation.
R: Great. So the reason I gave before, that’s all I need to do?
CC: That’s all you need to do.

Like I say
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.
Right now does it matter to a doctor in england, who doesn't even see the woman, that the law talks about risk of injury?
Does it matter to him, or the woman answering the phone in the clinic, what the law says?
They are people who believe the outcome - an abortion for a woman who wants it - is justified, regardless of how the law is phrased.
Would a doctor who refused to sign because he thought there was a risk of injury but not of serious harm - if that didn't already sound ridiculous -would that doctor even feel he belonged in such a place. How long would he last?

Do you honestly think if this referendum was passed the experience for a woman presenting herself at the door of a Marie Stopes clinic in Dublin would be different than if she was in Liverpool. Honestly.


These are the people to whom a Yes vote will hand control of the actual implementation of abortion practices. All they would need to know is that the law allowed some grounds, some plausible (or implausible) excuse, and they will feel free to do what they think is right; Grant an abortion to any woman who wants it up to 24 weeks.

If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

ohnonotgmail

repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

mohawk

This whole focus on abortion up to 24 weeks seems pointless to me.

I don't suppose there is any point in pointing out that the vast majority of abortions performed in Developed countries take place in first 12 weeks.
Some of the later abortions are due to fatal fetal abnormalities or severe disabilities.

Women who have abortions tend not to tell many people and most keep it as secret as possible. Some women start showing from 12-16 weeks, by about 20 weeks that is a definite bump and not just a recent weight gain. Seriously are we to believe that if we vote yes women are going to go - you know what I fancy an abortion and I am going to wait until until I am visibly showing and then have the abortion . Seems far-fetched to me.

If I was a cynical person I might be inclined to think that some are trying to do some good old-fashioned scare mongering using lies.