The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

sean635

eviltwin wrote: »

"Because I say so" isn't an argument

I back up my view with points.
I never invoked that my view was right “because I say so”

david75

sean635 wrote: »

I neve said that my opinion was superior. Seriously, I never said that. I think my opinion is right because every human has the right to bodily autonomy to the extent that they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s. That is what abortion does. It kills another human being.

The blatant blind hypocrisy and stupidity in this one post though..

You’re either a professional troll or an idiot

Mod-Banned

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

I neve said that my opinion was superior. Seriously, I never said that. I think my opinion is right because every human has the right to bodily autonomy to the extent that they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s. That is what abortion does. It kills another human being.

By not allowing another person the choice to choose differently to you, you are implying your opinion is superior.
Voting Yes allows everyone to live by their own principles, voting No ensures only one set of principles are allowed.
I shouldn’t have to spell this out to you.

I say this as someone who is staunchly pro repeal but would never have an abortion myself. I respect other people’s right to choose differently.
Perhaps you should see past your own morals and feelings and do the same.

sean635

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not true - prosecution for sex abuse abroad is possible

They would be prosecuted within the jurisdiction that they committed the crime, not at home. The only exception I could think of is if the victim was also from their home country

eviltwin

sean635 wrote: »

I back up my view with points.
I never invoked that my view was right “because I say so”

That's all your argument amounts to. You believe a fertilized egg has the same value as you or I. I see myself as more important to a foetus. We both have our opinions, the only difference is I am not trying to force my views on everyone else.

Cody montana

sean635 wrote: »

I neve said that my opinion was superior. Seriously, I never said that. I think my opinion is right because every human has the right to bodily autonomy to the extent that they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s. That is what abortion does. It kills another human being.

A foetus is not a human being.

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

By not allowing another person the choice to choose differently to you, you are implying your opinion is superior.
Voting Yes allows everyone to live by their own principles, voting No ensures only one set of principles are allowed.
I shouldn’t have to spell this out to you.

I say this as someone who is staunchly pro repeal but would never have an abortion myself. I respect other people’s right to choose differently.
Perhaps you should see past your own morals and feelings and do the same.

I’m implying no more than that the “choice” there making is killing another human being. Which it is, by the way. Therefore it shouldn’t be allowed

sean635

sean635 wrote: »

So you have to be born to be a person as well as having sentient thought as you said before? Please explain to me how the vaginal canal confers personhood when the baby passes through it at birth.

Because once born you then become a person as you are an individual. Before that your a fetus.

personhood
noun
the state or condition of being a person, or individual human being
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition.

Can't make it any simpler.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

I’m implying no more than that the “choice” there making is killing another human being. Which it is, by the way. Therefore it shouldn’t be allowed

It isn’t killing another human being. It just isn’t. Why don’t we prosecute women who procure abortions abroad?
Because the government don’t see it as so and society aren’t bothered enough to campaign for it to happen.

sean635

DubInMeath wrote: »

Because once born you then become a person as you are an individual. Before that your a fetus.

personhood
noun
the state or condition of being a person, or individual human being
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition.

Can't make it any simpler.

It is an individual human being before birth, it has it’s own DNA and organ systems. It’s a separate organism. It’s not the mother’s body nor an extension of it’s mothers’s body

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

It isn’t killing another human being. It just isn’t. Why don’t we prosecute women who procure abortions abroad?
Because the government don’t see it as so and society aren’t bothered enough to campaign for it to happen.

They aren’t prosecuted because in those jurisdictions, it isn’t given rights.
And if it isn’t a human being that’s killed then what pray tell is an abortion according to you?

genericgoon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So why then is it not okay to believe in laws that force a woman to remain pregnant at 12 weeks when they believe in laws that force women to remain pregnant at 38 weeks? Shouldn't they just take their own advice and mind their own business? And let women do what they want with their own bodies, like they keep telling others to do?

The simple reason you are missing is viability outside the womb. Once the child is outside the womb, they no longer have to make claims on someone else's bodily autonomy. This is why the limit in most countries where abortion is legal tends to range between 10 - 24 weeks since the earliest recorded birth was at 21 weeks*.

Having it at 12 weeks is a compromise as the probability of a technology providing for viability outside the womb at that juncture is incredibly remote due to the level of foetal development at that point**. Compromises are natural part of how laws end up being created and coincidentally something constrained deliberately by the 8th amendment.

Admittedly, even though viability is established at 20-30 week point, a woman would be expected to carry to term unless exceptional circumstances occurred. But this is another compromise and, in practice, the vast majority women make the decision before then (~85% in UK before 12 weeks and reasonably can expect a higher rate if limit set to 12 weeks here). Fringe cases can be dealt in a humane way which balances the respective rights on a case-by-case basis.

*The more liberal limits tend to come from the older laws in general so obviously viability has changed from then. But we can reasonably expect there is a limit to increasing viability since it took nearly 30 years to go from 21 weeks and 5 days to 21 weeks and 4 days.

**Artificial wombs may be the exception to the above but would come with their own moral/ethical dilemmas if widely available. Regardless, we do not generally base laws on speculative untested technology.

sean635

david75 wrote: »

The blatant blind hypocrisy and stupidity in this one post though..

You’re either a professional troll or an idiot

I stated my view and backed it up with a point. And I’m a troll just because you think my view is silly?

robarmstrong

sean635 wrote: »

Please. I’m here only for a constructive dialogue. There’s no need for personal remarks. The focus of discussion should be on this question. Is a foetus a person? Once that question is answered, then we can talk about it’s rights and exceptions to it’s rights

Sean, I'm going to be very frank with you.

No discussion with you is a constructive dialogue. We have tried to discuss with you reasonably about the matter, even offering sensitive circumstances such as erica's, for example. (sorry to bring you up erica!)

You're honestly telling us all here that no, you would not force a woman to carry a child conceived out of rape, but you would prohibit her from terminating said pregnancy, this is a direct contradiction and a whopping fallacy.

You then tell people that a woman should be essentially made carry a baby no matter what, again, completely disregarding this woman's choice, feelings and rights.

We are more than happy to have a constructive dialogue with you, but you have absolutely nothing to offer other than extremely insensitive remarks and absolutely horrid mindset towards women (especially those who have been forced into a pregnancy due to rape, etc).

You can sit there and spout it all you want, but I guarantee you if you would say some of the stuff you've said on here to a daughter/sister/female relative in need (hopefully you never have to go through that), you would be viewed as far, far worse than anything you could describe those who support the right to pursue an abortion.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

They aren’t prosecuted because in those jurisdictions, it isn’t given rights.
And if it isn’t a human being that’s killed then what pray tell is an abortion according to you?

It doesn’t suddenly stop being a life as soon as the woman gets on the plane.
If the prolifers truly believed these women were killing another person they would be doing all they could to stop these women from traveling.
But they don’t care enough to do so. Make of that what you will.

mzungu

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not unlikely as things stand at all. I know someone who had the test. They were 10 weeks pregnant, picked up the kit, had blood taken, dropped it back the same day, had the results in less than a week. Even if you go by the 8 days they state, that just takes you into the 11th week. How anyone could justify calling that an impossibility is beyond me.

The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated that it is "technically possible" prior to 12 weeks, but in reality a diagnosis is rarely achieved in that timeframe. Combined ultrasound results from 11 weeks and blood samples from 10 weeks can give an assessment, but they will not be conclusive.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, as over 90% of pregnant women that are informed that the baby they're carrying has Down syndrome (in the UK and a few other countries in the Europe) are choosing to have them killed. How is that not a genocide?

They chose to abort their pregnancy for their own personal reasons. There are quite a number of downs syndrome children born every year and they are in no danger of being wiped out. On the matter of the figure of 90% in the UK, it is worth noting that of those aborted cases, we do not know how many were incompatible with life, thus leading to the choice for termination. Calling it a genocide is an appeal to emotion, but the argument has nothing to back it up.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Would they have to have them killed at birth before anyone cared? What if there was a test to tell race in the first trimester and it came out that 90% of white women were choosing to abort the baby when told it wasn't white? Would that be okay? Or would that be too much for liberals? It's just a bunch of cells though, so what harm.

Does it matter what the reason is? Abortions have been carried out for decades for numerous different reasons. Society has not crumbled at the foundations because of it.

The vast majority of abortions will be carried out where there is no condition like Downs Syndrome present, does this equate to an able bodied genocide? Of course not.

A note on your last line, I avoid using terms like a "clump of cells" as I am not a fan of it.

david75

sean635 wrote: »

I stated my view and backed it up with a point. And I’m a troll just because you think my view is silly?

read your post again. You’re completely contradicting yourself. Again.

eviltwin

sean635 wrote: »

They aren’t prosecuted because in those jurisdictions, it isn’t given rights.
And if it isn’t a human being that’s killed then what pray tell is an abortion according to you?

What about the women who have abortions here? Do you believe they should be charged with murder?

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

It doesn’t suddenly stop being a lift as soon as the woman gets on the plane.
If the prolifers truly believed these women were killing another person they would be doing all they could to stop these women from traveling.
But they don’t care enough to do so. Make of that what you will.

Damn right it doesn’t stop being a life when she gets on the plane. It’s no recognized as a person with rights under British law. That’s the problem. I disagree with British law but there’s not a whole lot I can do to change it. I can at least help ensure that Irish law doesn’t follow suit

sean635

eviltwin wrote: »

What about the women who have abortions here? Do you believe they should be charged with murder?

Manslaughter would seem appropriate since most of the women don’t recognize that it’s a human life they’re killing. That’s if she takes a pill herself. If a doctor is involved, he should be charged with murder and the woman not charged with anything.

Outlaw Pete

Madscientist30 wrote: »

I just wonder why your aversion to child abuse focuses more on the unborn who are not sentient and not recognised as children legally than the sentient, born children who are being abused across the world.

I haven't seen any threat of laws being brought in that would make it legal to kill born children. If you see any, give us a shout.

I wonder sometimes whether it is actually another motivation which drives some prolifers rather than genuine love and concern for children.

I don't particularly have a love for children. Annoying little brats if you ask me.

But I'm an atheist and so I know that this is it. This is all there is and that little life in there, in that womb, underdeveloped and all as it is, and admittedly currently capable of very little, will have only one chance at the world and I'll be fcuked if I'd take it form them, or indeed, contribute to an atmosphere where people thought it was okay (without a damn good reason at least).

Otherwise surely all these people that are so passionate about children would be registered to adopt/foster kids in care, supporting families in crisis pregnancies, helping disadvantaged kids get an education etc....

What makes you think they're not?

Annasopra

sean635 wrote: »

Damn right it doesn’t stop being a life when she gets on the plane. It’s no recognized as a person with rights under British law. That’s the problem. I disagree with British law but there’s not a whole lot I can do to change it. I can at least help ensure that Irish law doesn’t follow suit

This is just simply ridiculous. We already have the UK system in Ireland for wealthy people. The UK law is effectively the legislative framework for Irish abortions. Saying we shouldnt follow suit is silly when we voted to follow suit 25 26 years ago.

Edward M

sean635 wrote: »

Damn right it doesn’t stop being a life when she gets on the plane. It’s no recognized as a person with rights under British law. That’s the problem. I disagree with British law but there’s not a whole lot I can do to change it. I can at least help ensure that Irish law doesn’t follow suit

Simple question Sean, do you believe in the eighth amendment in our constitution and all it entails?

eviltwin

sean635 wrote: »

Manslaughter would seem appropriate since most of the women don’t recognize that it’s a human life they’re killing. That’s if she takes a pill herself. If a doctor is involved, he should be charged with murder and the woman not charged with anything.

So you believe a foetus to be equal in all ways to a living person but think women who abort should be treated differently to any other murderer.

Make up your mind.

Cody montana

sean635 wrote: »

Manslaughter would seem appropriate since most of the women don’t recognize that it’s a human life they’re killing. That’s if she takes a pill herself. If a doctor is involved, he should be charged with murder and the woman not charged with anything.

You are a lunatic.

sean635

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is just simply ridiculous. We already have the UK system in Ireland for wealthy people. The UK law is effectively the legislative framework for Irish abortions. Saying we shouldnt follow suit is silly when we voted to follow suit 25 26 years ago.

How is it the same? Why are they traveling if it’s the same?

sean635

eviltwin wrote: »

So you believe a foetus to be equal in all ways to a living person but think women who abort should be treated differently to any other murderer.

Make up your mind.

Most women who order pills over the internet take them under the belief that they are not killing a person. The criminal intent is not the same as with a doctor who knows right well what he’s doing. Therefore manslaughter is an appropriate charge for a woman who takes the pill herself. The supplier of the pill could be charged as an accessory

Annasopra

sean635 wrote: »

How is it the same? Why are they traveling if it’s the same?

Did I say they were the same?

sean635

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Did I say they were the same?

You just said the Irish framework of laws on this is the same as in Britain. Maybe if you could clarify. I think I misunderstood you

eviltwin

sean635 wrote: »

Most women who order pills over the internet take them under the belief that they are not killing a person. The criminal intent is not the same as with a doctor who knows right well what he’s doing. Therefore manslaughter is an appropriate charge for a woman who takes the pill herself. The supplier of the pill could be charged as an accessory

They don't see the foetus as a person. Thank god we have you to tell the different eh? :rolleyes: