The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

I am referring to the issue that the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee is that abortion would be available without restriction for 12 weeks.

It isn't just abortion in certain circumstances that is recommended.

And I never said it was. My question was about in what circumstances you think abortion should be allowed. Are there any circumstances you think abortion should be allowed, and if so, what are they?

horseburger

reubenreuben wrote: »

Maybe ask those questions to the almost 4k a year that travel outside of Ireland to abort.
Women living here are still having the abortions abroad , you do know that right?

Yes I do, but that doesn't alter the fundamental concern that people who are opposed to abortion, have about abortion which is about the fundamental issue of the justification of deliberately ending a human life.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote:

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn?

Due to the impact it has on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling.

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn?

It is human before and after birth and is dependent on others for many years after birth.

Because it doesn't deserve the same rights of the woman carrying it. Her rights, needs and want should take priority unless she chooses otherwise.
I am more important than a >12 week fetus.

If you saw a fertility clinic on fire, and could only save one or the other, would you save a toddler, or a petri dish with a zygote inside? Which would you save, and why?

Delirium

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't the difference in that case, that the life would be ended on the basis of no chance of recovery of that brain dead person?

Probably true. I was merely responding to your query where a human life is ended without consent.

Whereas with abortion without restriction, the human being aborted, very often has a healthy life ahead, if the pregnancy continues?

Yes, but I don't see why probabilities of a healthy birth should negate the right of the pregnant person to decide if they wish to go through with the pregnancy.

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

Any confirmed pregnancy, involving an unborn human being, created as a result of a male human sperm and female human egg, is human, is it not?

Did anything I write suggest otherwise? If not then I am not clear why you are asking me this. No one anywhere on this ENTIRE thread appears to be to be denying the biological taxonomy involved here. What they ARE doing is questioning you on the relevance of it. Something you have not deigned to respond to. And I do not find myself under any confusion as to why that might be.

horseburger wrote: »

The debate about abortion, centres around the question on whether is right or wrong to deliberately end human life.

No it does not and I explained why. I am not sure why repeating the same thing I just responded to.... unedited and unchanged..... is something you consider a mature and valid way to respond to another person in a conversation.

Let me correct your error again however.

The debate about abortion centers around whether a fetus at 12 weeks has rights at all, and specifically the right to life.

You have not established such reasoning. You just screech "Human" at the issue and then dodge the rest.

horseburger wrote: »

Using trees to make newspapers does nothing to address the question of the justification to end an unborn human life.

Except yes it does. It points out the simple fact that we end life all the time. And if we therefore want to NOT end a particular life or collection of "life" then we need to provide reasons and reasoning as to why that might be.

Shouting "human" at that question just begs the question further. It certainly does not answer it. Nor, I suspect, can you answer it.

horseburger wrote: »

You are suggesting that because it didn't decide to become a living human being, that that human life should be ended?

Nope. They are suggesting that parsing this debate through the lens of a fetus giving "consent" is ridiculous in the first place. The nuance of how that was suggested however has sent it entirely over your head alas.

horseburger wrote: »

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn? It is human before and after birth

The answer to your question lies in what you said after it. Rights are not, or at least should not, be assigned based on mere taxonomy.

We are not entirely unlikely to invent General Artificial Intelligence in the future. Perhaps even sooner than we expect. Such Sentience will have concerns and agendas and desires and everything humans have. It will not be human.

Should it have rights? Should we hold moral and ethical concern for it? If so then why given it is not "Human"? If not then why not given it is every bit as sentient as you, if not more so? Should anyone be allowed simply turn it on and torture it?

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

No it hasn't. The example given was a brain dead person.

Wouldn't the difference there be that the brain dead human would not have chance of recovery, whereas in abortion without restriction, the human has a healthy life ahead?

the exact question you asked has already been answered. it may be human but it is not A human. it lacks many of the qualities that define humanity. it does not, and should not, have the same rights as an actual living human.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

Humans are dependent on others after birth as well. Humans are dependent on others for many years after birth.

But that care can be given by anyone. Prior to ~24 weeks _only_ ye woman who is pregnant can provide anything. Why should she be forced tonagainst her will?

Yeah_Right

horseburger wrote: »

Yes I do, but that doesn't alter the fundamental concern that people who are opposed to abortion, have about abortion which is about the fundamental issue of the justification of deliberately ending a potential human life.

FYP

horseburger

NuMarvel wrote: »

And I never said it was. My question was about in what circumstances you think abortion should be allowed. Are there any circumstances you think abortion should be allowed, and if so, what are they?

I would have a concern with abortion in certain cases, where the prognosis is not good, in the sense that one can never be sure how long a child will live, upon birth.

My understanding is that if the pregnancy is continued, where a diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality/life limiting condition has been confirmed, that it can never be said with certainty, how long the child will live.

The Oireachtas Committee recommendations are more wide ranging than certain circumstances.

I thought Peadar Tóibín spoke sincerely on this issue, where, in the Dáil, he mentioned a case where a child, given a diagnosis of Trisomy 13 before birth, lived much longer than predicted by doctors.

horseburger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the exact question you asked has already been answered. it may be human but it is not A human. it lacks many of the qualities that define humanity. it does not, and should not, have the same rights as an actual living human.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

FYP

In order to claim that it only becomes human when it is born, you have to work on the basis that it is something other than human before birth, even though it has been created by two humans, one male and one female.

How can you suggest it isn't human, and living, before birth?

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Due to the impact it has on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling.

Doesn't a born child also impact on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling?

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

I would have a concern with abortion in certain cases, where the prognosis is not good, in the sense that one can never be sure how long a child will live, upon birth.

My understanding is that if the pregnancy is continued, where a diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality/life limiting condition has been confirmed, that it can never be said with certainty, how long the child will live.

The Oireachtas Committee recommendations are more wide ranging than certain circumstances.

I thought Peadar Tóibín spoke sincerely on this issue, where, in the Dáil, he mentioned a case where a child, given a diagnosis of Trisomy 13 before birth, lived much longer than predicted by doctors.

I’m sorry, it’s not clear from your post. You think women should have to carry to term pregnancies because the baby might live a bit longer than initially thought? What do you think should be the cutoff point for watching your doomed child die in infancy? And shouldn’t the choice to take that chance be the parents’?

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

Doesn't a born child also impact on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling?

Again: can be cared for by anyone. Before birth only the pregnant woman. Why should she be forced to do so?

horseburger

kylith wrote: »

I’m sorry, it’s not clear from your post. You think women should have to carry to term pregnancies because the baby might live a bit longer than initially thought? What do you think should be the cutoff point for watching your doomed child die in infancy?

I didn't say that they should be forced to carry pregnancies.

I said that I have a concern about the issue, that from what I understand, that it can't be stated with certainty how long an unborn human life, in those circumstances, will live upon birth.

What I am asking is how people that advocate for abortion, can describe what's growing during a pregnancy, as anything other than human.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Doesn't a born child also impact on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling?

No

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

In order to claim that it only becomes human when it is born, you have to work on the basis that it is something other than human before birth

No. you would not.

Rather what you would have to do is point out that although we have one word "Human" it has different meanings and different implications depending on the context.

The issue here is one of language. We unfortunately have one word that means many things. And your entire rhetoric is on blurring that fact and acting like it means one thing all the time. This is not an honest move for you to make.

The difference between Human (taxonomy, biology) and Human (personhood, philosophy) is massive. And while you are pretending the abortion debate is about the former, it is actually about the latter.

horseburger wrote: »

What I am asking is how people that advocate for abortion, can describe what's growing during a pregnancy, as anything other than human.

They aren't. They are saying it is not a PERSON. And "Human" when not being used in terms of biological taxonomy is another valid term for "person".

If it helps try and use capitals to distinguish the two as in human (biology) and Human (person).

The fetus at 12 weeks is human it is not Human.

I do not doubt your intellect (yet) so I suspect if you do not see the difference it is not because you can not, but because you refuse to.

horseburger

kylith wrote: »

Again: can be cared for by anyone. Before birth only the pregnant woman. Why should she be forced to do so?

What's the difference in the child being cared for by someone else, if the first argument given was that the mother shouldn't have the burden of caring for it before birth?

In that argument, is the child not still a burden on someone, even though its not the mother.

The argument was that the child is a burden, not on whom it is a burden.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

In order to claim that it only becomes human when it is born, you have to work on the basis that it is something other than human before birth, even though it has been created by two humans, one male and one female.

How can you suggest it isn't human, and living, before birth?

horseburger wrote: »

What I am asking is how people that advocate for abortion, can describe what's growing during a pregnancy, as anything other than human.

How do you define human?

How do you define separate and distinct?

This is important, otherwise you could end up defining toenail clippings as human.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No

How so?

Doesn't raising children alter the everyday routine and financial circumstances of the people raising them, no mater if its the biological parents or anyone else?

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you define human?

How do you define separate and distinct?

This is important, otherwise you could end up defining toenail clippings as human.

I would define a human life, as a life that is created by two humans, one female and one male.

Are you going to suggest otherwise?

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

I am referring to the issue that the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee is that abortion would be available without restriction for 12 weeks.

It isn't just abortion in certain circumstances that is recommended.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

Your post is self-contradictory.

Unrestricted abortion is abortion on demand up until birth. One you put a limit - 12 weeks - on abortion, then by definition you only have abortion in certain circumstances.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

I didn't say that they should be forced to carry pregnancies.

I said that I have a concern about the issue, that from what I understand, that it can't be stated with certainty how long an unborn human life, in those circumstances, will live upon birth.

Well, what is your concern?

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

What's the difference in the child being cared for by someone else, if the first argument given was that the mother shouldn't have the burden of caring for it before birth?

In that argument, is the child not still a burden on someone, even though its not the mother.

The argument was that the child is a burden, not on whom it is a burden.

The argument is that pregnancy is uncomfortable at best and life threatening at worst, and that childbirth is fcking agony. Why should a woman be forced to do that if she is not willing?

Further to that, a woman may not feel physically, emotionally, or financially able to care for that child after birth. Why should she be forced to?

Yeah_Right

horseburger wrote: »

I would define a human life, as a life that is created by two humans, one female and one male.

Are you going to suggest otherwise?

Can you define life? When does it begin? When does it end?

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

Your post is self-contradictory.

Unrestricted abortion is abortion on demand up until birth. One you put a limit - 12 weeks - on abortion, then by definition you only have abortion in certain circumstances.

The difference is that the 12 week limit recommendation is not just cases of life limiting conditions.

My understanding is that the 12 week without restriction recommendation includes cases where the child will be aborted in situations where it would otherwise grow and develop healthily and be born healthy.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

I would define a human life, as a life that is created by two humans, one female and one male.

Are you going to suggest otherwise?

With all due respect, that is something from a primary school textbook.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/you-won-t-believe-what-baby-making-science-could-soon-n714411

Children born as a result of in vitro gametogenesis would not be human as per your definition, yet my toenail clippings might be?

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

The difference is that the 12 week limit recommendation is not just cases of life limiting conditions.

My understanding is that the 12 week without restriction recommendation includes cases where the child will be aborted in situations where it would otherwise grow and develop healthily and be born healthily.

Once it is limited to 12 weeks, you are imposing abortion only in certain circumstances.

One of the most popular lies among the pro-life campaigners is that Repeal the 8th will introduce unrestricted abortion on demand, it simply isn't true.

horseburger

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can you define life? When does it begin? When does it end?

Would you not define life as being when conception takes place, or if not that, would you not argue that a life beings when the pregnancy is confirmed?

Is that not a reasonable interpretation of when life begins?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

I would define a human life, as a life that is created by two humans, one female and one male.

A definition that is only valid if you were having a conversation about biology. And even then it would not be wholly valid given that some conceptions now are inclusive of THREE parents.

Thankfully ACTUAL scientists and ACTUAL biologists are not going to you for definitions.

The issue is however it is not a biological definition of Human Life that is required when discussing philosophy, morality, ethics, rights, humanity and personhood. If you claim you would give the same definition THERE..... then you are either lying to us or not at all informed about the subjects in question.