The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think this is a really useful post to start a discussion on this because I feel a small point of confusion exists in what you are saying. And it exists in the non-sequitur between your two sentences here.

What I mean by that is that the "dispute" you mention in the second sentence is not an attribute of the "Human/a Human" distinction in your first.

So if your basis of thinking that distinction "disingenuous" is described in the second sentence, as it seems, then this is a simple error we can focus on and repair.

So let me do just that.

The distinction being made between "human / a human" is not at all, at any level, based on what it will become. Even less based on denial of what it will become.

Rather the distinction is based on honest introspection and an attempt to zero in on what it actually is we value when we concern ourselves with rights and morality and ethics.

The result of that introspection for me was to realize that right and ethics are in the business of mediating the actions of, and well being of, conscious creatures. Without that attribute there not only would BE no morality and rights.... there would be nothing to apply it or apply it to.

The fetus is not a consciousness or sentience at 12 weeks. It neither has that faculty, nor has it ever. As such there seems to be no coherent basis at that time to afford it rights, or moral and ethical concern.

THAT is the crux of the "Human / a Human" distinction. And as I said, it has nothing to do with what you described in your second sentence. Even if anyone was actually doing what you described in your second sentence. Which, to my knowledge, no one actually appears to be doing.

But...........

On one side of the debate that may be true, not on the other.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am MORE than open to having my position on abortion changed. I am in no way invested in my conclusions or dogmatically dedicated to them. I can instantly and quickly be changed.

But to do so it would require a basis for affording rights to that fetus. And so far the only basis for claiming the fetus is an entity deserving of rights..... is to appeal to the idea it will BECOME an entity deserving of rights. Which is..... incoherent and desperate at best.

It's nothing to do with changing minds, it's to do with people seeing it from both sides and accepting all evidence and reason and making the best call based on that. I don't think any people who are posting on here will change their minds, but they question certain arguments put forward by their own side.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In terms of sentience it is perfectly valid. A fetus is closer to a toe nail than to a new born baby in terms of sentience. In that a toe nail and a fetus lack that faculty ENTIRELY. A new born baby does not. So it is certainly valid to say where the fetus lies on that continuum. It might leave a bad taste in the mouth to hear that comparison, but that does not invalidate the comparison.

But of course there is more to being a human than sentience.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Got that feeling.

So you went from "who cares" to "listen to this other person".:)

RobertKK

BarleySweets wrote: »

Are you intentionally lying here? On a different post, I asked you a valid question which you did not answer at all! Instead you rewrote my question to avoid having to reply to me with a valid answer.

So, Robert, why don’t you trust women?

Your question was answered.
See post 6440.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes and the answer didn’t suit and you never followed up with another question. So stop the lies about dodging when you dodged asking questions when asked.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

On one side of the debate that may be true, not on the other.

I can only speak for my side of the debate. Or at least my corner of it. I certainly do not speak for all pro-choice people. And a few disagree with my human-humanity distinction. They understand the distinction though, which is a different point, even if they do not agree with it.

But I was referring specifically to the "Human / A Human" distinction being made on the pro-choice side of abortion, and the error I feel you are making in your evaluation of it as "disingenuous". So what the OTHER side is saying really has nothing to do with what I was explaining for you.

Ush1 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with changing minds

I was just referring to your use of the term dogma(tic) which implies a dedication to the material to the level one is not open to other arguments, or the changing of ones own mind.

I am just pointing out that while people often defend their position robustly (I would like to think I do at least) that does not come from a dogmatic dedication to it.

Like falsification in science I not only know what my position is, but what would negate it / change it. And all it would require is a model for rights and ethics that lends coherence to the move of assigning them to an entirely non sentient agent.

If that were done, I would likely change my position to anti-abortion instantly. Without reservation, apology, embarrassment or hesitation.

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't think any people who are posting on here will change their minds, but they question certain arguments put forward by their own side.

I do not write my posts (such as this one you are now reading) with solely other posters in mind, but readers too. For every person posting, many people read the posts. And if I thought I was not changing minds, or was not open to having my own mind changed, I would stop instantly.

But the messages I get both on thread and in private messages assure me my posts HAVE reached people and HAVE changed peoples minds and/or thinking and/or approach to this topic.

Ush1 wrote: »

But of course there is more to being a human than sentience.

That is vague so I am not sure I can be sure either what you DO mean or DO NOT mean by this sentence. As I said what we even mean by "human" depends on context. And your sentence lacks that. For example if you are talking about biological taxonomy then I 100% agree.... there are things like DNA and more to being human.

But I am speaking in the context of right. Morality. Ethics. Well being. Philosophy. Personhood. Humanity. And in that context.... while I am sure there may be ore to being human than the faculty of human consciousness and sentience........ I am struggling to think of all that much of any relevance. Perhaps you can be less vague and adumbrate the basics of what you are referring to here.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes and the answer didn’t suit and you never followed up with another question. So stop the lies about dodging when you dodged asking questions when asked.

why should an entity with no sentience have the same rights as a woman?

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why, because one is dealing with two lives, not just the one life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That's a bit condescending, you have no idea what I'm willing to consider or what I've considered in the past, you have no idea what resources I've consulted in arriving at my decision. I'm delighted for you that you're so interested in the topic and I like to see someone who's fully engaged in politics in such a way, political apathy is dangerous in a democratic society, but as i've said before I'm not interested in spending my day watching video links you post.

Weren't you being condescending to me when you suggested that I had only just started considering the issue?

All I said was that I had begun to put a bit more effort into hearing the arguments for and against, when late last year it became apparent that a referendum would be held this year. I found that there were numerous lengthy and detailed debates, arguing the case for and against.

I posted the video links because I thought they'd be relevant, in a thread were the arguments for and against Article 40.3.3 of the 8th amendment is being discussed.

I wasn't expecting you to spend the whole day watching the videos. I just thought they'd be of interest.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938551-church-of-ireland-abortion/

Here is an item on the RTE website by Joe Little about Archbishop Richard Clarke and Michael Jackson, of the Church of Ireland, suggest that the Article 40.3.3 could be modified to include cases of pregnancy that pose a risk to the mother.

""In a statement, the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, Richard Clarke and Michael Jackson, said Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution should be modified to give the Oireachtas legislative responsibility for addressing termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and the rights of the pregnant woman. They say this should be done within clearly defined boundaries and parameters"

"Their joint statement opens by recalling that the Church of Ireland's tradition rejects unrestricted access to abortion while, at the same time "being concerned to ensure provision (of abortion) for hopefully rare circumstances and in a secure medical setting". They state that individuals will inevitably differ over where to draw the line between these two propositions. "Instances where the life of the woman is at serious risk have long been regarded within Church of Ireland teaching as situations where termination of a pregnancy would be justifiable," they said. "For some, pregnancy after sexual crime or the medical certainty of fatal foetal abnormality might also be seen as circumstances where abortion could be considered as justified."".

"They say they recognise the dilemma faced by legislators, medical, nursing and healthcare practitioners with regards to access to unrestricted abortion during the early months of pregnancy.""However, unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or indeed at any stage, is not an ethical position we can accept," they said. Both archbishops urged the strengthening of legislation to improve support services to quickly and comprehensively meet the needs of pregnant women who face difficult situations".".

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He thought a plastic doll was the exact replica of an actual 12 week old fetus, I wouldn't hold high hopes for a reasonable debate there to be fair considering other pro-lifers weren't backing him up on his statement...

horseburger

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying women on the retain side trust fellow women? I don’t trust strangers who ask for them to be trusted when they seem to want to avoid talking about the unborn.
Like this woman whose only argument seemed to be trust women and who avoided the unborn like the plague.

https://twitter.com/mejtom/status/980837272068284416?s=21

On an edition of Tonight with Vincent Browne she described the foetus as a "blob".

Isn't it disrespectful to use the term blob, to describe a living being?

Other posters will be delighted that I can't remember the date of the episode so I can't access it as conveniently as the other videos I posted.:)

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can only speak for my side of the debate. Or at least my corner of it. I certainly do not speak for all pro-choice people. And a few disagree with my human-humanity distinction. They understand the distinction though, which is a different point, even if they do not agree with it.

But I was referring specifically to the "Human / A Human" distinction being made on the pro-choice side of abortion, and the error I feel you are making in your evaluation of it as "disingenuous". So what the OTHER side is saying really has nothing to do with what I was explaining for you.

That's fair enough. As you alluded is often down to context and the individual putting forward the argument and their particular reasons for it.

While you may not I believe a number of people do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I was just referring to your use of the term dogma(tic) which implies a dedication to the material to the level one is not open to other arguments, or the changing of ones own mind.

I am just pointing out that while people often defend their position robustly (I would like to think I do at least) that does not come from a dogmatic dedication to it.

Like falsification in science I not only know what my position is, but what would negate it / change it. And all it would require is a model for rights and ethics that lends coherence to the move of assigning them to an entirely non sentient agent.

If that were done, I would likely change my position to anti-abortion instantly. Without reservation, apology, embarrassment or hesitation.

I don't doubt it and would feel the same but I'm not sure about certain demographics on either side.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is vague so I am not sure I can be sure either what you DO mean or DO NOT mean by this sentence. As I said what we even mean by "human" depends on context. And your sentence lacks that. For example if you are talking about biological taxonomy then I 100% agree.... there are things like DNA and more to being human.

But I am speaking in the context of right. Morality. Ethics. Well being. Philosophy. Personhood. Humanity. And in that context.... while I am sure there may be ore to being human than the faculty of human consciousness and sentience........ I am struggling to think of all that much of any relevance. Perhaps you can be less vague and adumbrate the basics of what you are referring to here.

Yes biologically, it is our biology that gives rise to the possibility of humanity in terms of morals, rights, etc....

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

On an edition of Tonight with Vincent Browne she described the foetus as a "blob".

Other posters will be delighted that I can't remember the date of the episode so I can't access it as conveniently as the other videos I posted.:)

Is it a human blob or just a blob?

Quick one for you, I know you weren't involved but I'd like your thoughts on comparison if you wouldn't mind.

Is this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106761098&postcount=6257 an accurate depiction of what a 12 week fetus looks like?

I don't think it resembles the real deal, do you? http://i.imgur.com/1OK22HS.jpg

reubenreuben

Has religion got anything to do with how one would vote?

If so, then what has it got to do with the church!

They have already brainwashed enough people in this country and are now at it in other countries.

Please stop.

BarleySweets

RobertKK wrote: »

Your question was answered.
See post 6440.

No it wasn’t. On what planet is what you wrote on post #6440 a valid answer to “Why don’t you trust women, Robert?”

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying women on the retain side trust fellow women? I don’t trust strangers who ask for them to be trusted when they seem to want to avoid talking about the unborn.
Like this woman whose only argument seemed to be trust women and who avoided the unborn like the plague.

So, for the 3rd or 4th time: why don’t you trust women, Robert?

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why should an entity with no sentience have the same rights as a woman?

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

RobertKK

BarleySweets wrote: »

No it wasn’t. On what planet is what you wrote on post #6440 a valid answer to “Why don’t you trust women, Robert?”






So, for the 3rd or 4th time: why don’t you trust women, Robert?

Trust women is just a slogan. I trust women I know I can trust, I trust men I know I can trust, I don't trust strangers simply because it is a slogan used in a campaign.
I trust who I feel I can trust, I don't trust women who want to ignore the lives of the unborn as if they don't exist.

reubenreuben

RobertKK wrote: »

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

What are you on my good fellow?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Trust women is just a slogan. I trust women I know I can trust, I trust men I know I can trust, I don't trust strangers simply because it is a slogan used in a campaign.
I trust who I feel I can trust, I don't trust women who want to ignore the lives of the unborn as if they don't exist.

I don't trust people who post incorrect images at an attempt to be factual and then lie about the accuracy of said images.

Where on earth would I have gotten that opinion from?

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

Why don't you ask one of the unborn what they think so?
Oh wait, no sentience

captbarnacles

RobertKK wrote: »

Being unborn is just one stage of life. It is as important as all the other stages of life for the human being and for all the human race.
If it was not just as important as a born life, otherwise we could have 100% abortion given we are told it is a woman's choice and if all women did for the sake of the argument, we could pretend it would have no consequences, even with one fifth to one sixth of pregnancies aborted in many western countries it is having a negative impact on society as each year the number of missing people from abortion grows in that society. The irony is immigration is then needed from regions with higher birth rates to fill jobs since the ratio of dependent people in society becomes a bigger burden on society as there are less younger people to do the jobs and pay taxes as the older generations retire, one consequence of smaller families is the rise in the retirement age.
This lack of taxpayers leads to immigration being needed to fill the hole of the missing people which takes people who could maybe help their own country to another where the pay is better and standards of living higher.
People can see the effect of immigration on politics in Europe with the rise of the far right and very right wing parties.
The societal effects of abortion are clear, it is negative and that non sentient human life is vital to all of humanity. If we decided to just kill all non sentient human in any form, we would go extinct. Some treat it as if it is not vital to mankind.

Shut up and get on with it women. We need your unwanted pregnancies to populate our country.

What are you doing about this Robert? find a like minded woman and procreate immediately. Our survival depends on it.

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Here is an item on the RTE website by Joe Little about Archbishop Richard Clarke and Michael Jackson, of the Church of Ireland, suggest that the Article 40.3.3 could be modified to include cases of pregnancy that pose a risk to the mother.
.

ahh, the archbishops, brilliant legal understanding both of them......

ELM327

captbarnacles wrote: »

Shut up and get on with it women. We need your unwanted pregnancies to populate our country.

What are you doing about this Robert? find a like minded woman and procreate immediately. Our survival depends on it.

There's already well over 250 million americans. He doesn't need to create more.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Weren't you being condescending to me when you suggested that I had only just started considering the issue?

All I said was that I had begun to put a bit more effort into hearing the arguments for and against, when late last year it became apparent that a referendum would be held this year.

Apologies then I took you up wrong, I took it to mean that you had only started looking into it in the last few months.

Cabaal

horseburger wrote: »

Christ above.

Do you seriously believe that if Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it that they would not have been accused of disrespect and sexism and devaluing women?

But it's not disrespectful to say a woman isn't a mother until the child is actually born, it's factual. A mother is a woman with a fetus that has come to term.

An expectant mother would be a common term used for a pregnant woman.

Danny and his ilk don't even have to work at saying insulting stuff, sure he has no issues forcing a woman to travel to the UK and bring the remains of her child back in the boot of her car because we as a country refuse to provide metal care for cases of fatel fetal abnormalities.

You are trying to defend hateful little men who would only be happy if Ireland stayed back in the 1950s. They are their like have been against countless progress changes in our country and they basically have a wet dream every time they hold back progressive change.

Their support of the 8th remaining is nothing more then a throw back to times when Ireland was a deeply conservative country and we "took care of things" by locking peaple away that we didn't agree with... Be it unmarried pregnant women or gays.

Let's not forget, when the 8th was introduced the pro 8th people "loved both" back then still, but they were still shaming pregnant women and enforcing social stigma... The same stigma that mother and baby homes benefited from.

gmisk

horseburger wrote: »

On an edition of Tonight with Vincent Browne she described the foetus as a "blob".

Isn't disrespectful to use the term blob to describe a living being?

Other posters will be delighted that I can't remember the date of the episode so I can't access it as conveniently as the other videos I posted.:)

I had a bet on Horseburger!
Where can I collect my winnings?!?