The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

So does wearing sandals with socks, should we make wearing those illegal too! :P:P

In fairness that is something i could easily get behind.

.......

This post has been deleted.

BarleySweets

horseburger wrote: »

But the problem I have about justifying it to be aborted, is, that at either stage depicted in the photos, it is developing and growing before pregnancy.

Both photos display human characteristics, and evidence of human development.

Why can't it all be considered part of its human development no different to the way any of us grow and develop, before and after we are born.

We all develop through life, and gain different abilities, as we grow.

Considering that we all gain abilities as we grow, before and after we are born, how can it be argued that because it is at an earlier stage of development, that it is ok to end its life, if it is healthy, and the pregnancy isn't causing a risk to the life of the mother?

That’s fine for you, you won’t be forced to have an abortion. After the referendum, your feelings on the unborn and abortion will affect you and your life only. Your preferences won’t influence anybody else, just like nobody else’s preferences will affect you.

If you get into a crisis pregnancy, you’ll have the freedom to choose not to abort if you wish. You can then choose to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Nobody will judge you or force you into making a choice that you don’t want to make.

Amazing how that works, right?

Zubeneschamali

BarleySweets wrote: »

Amazing how that works, right?

But what about other people's bedroom activities? Other people's medical issues? Don't I get to poke my nose in there?

Isn't that what democracy is all about?

BarleySweets

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That page has Ireland’s restrictions listed incorrectly so I’m not sure how much faith I’d put on their info.

Triceratops Ballet

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's definitely available up to a point in Iran, but not "on demand"

NuMarvel

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.

That sounds great, but there are plenty of examples in our law and society where the unborn are not regarded as being as important as all other stages of life.

In our constitution, the unborn's right to life is secondary to the freedom to travel; there's no equivalent constitutional provision for the right to life of the born. Every year, hundreds of women of women import pills for illegal abortions but no one is calling for their prosecution. In fact, some on the No side have called for these women to be decriminalised. Imagine the reaction if the same happened for homicides. And some unborn have no constitutional or legal protection whatsoever; nobody bats an eyelid to that.

How can you advocate a No vote on the basis that the unborn is the same as the rest of us, when a No vote perpetuates a status quo in which the unborn is not the same as the rest of us?

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

So you're saying legalising something that women are already doing will lead to the downfall of society. That sounds eerily similar to arguments made against previous societal changes. :rolleyes:

BarleySweets

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But what about other people's bedroom activities? Other people's medical issues? Don't I get to poke my nose in there?

Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Ugh, I forgot about all of those important issues, how could I forget any of that. Thank you for bringing them to my attention!

NuMarvel

ELM327 wrote: »

So does wearing sandals with socks, should we make wearing those illegal too! :P:P

I'd vote yes to putting that into the Constitution!

gmisk

ELM327 wrote: »

So does wearing sandals with socks, should we make wearing those illegal too! :P:P

er YES!!!!

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote:

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

Are you suggesting that due to falling pregnancy rates, and increasing population age, we should force people to continue with pregnancies they don't want?

For ****s sake, do you even read what you write, or do you just fling words and hope they make sense?

Love both, cos Bob needs his pension.

kylith

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Are you suggesting that due to falling pregnancy rates, and increasing population age, we should force people to continue with pregnancies they don't want?

For ****s sake, do you even read what you write, or do you just fling words and hope they make sense?

Love both, cos Bob needs his pension.

And he doesn't want any immigrants paying for it.

gmisk

applehunter wrote: »

Okkkkk....thats nice...

Sofiztikated

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'd vote yes to putting that into the Constitution!

To be fair, socks and sandals are enough of a contraceptive, and we already have a right to access them.

Remember when contraceptives were going to ruin Ireland?

ohnonotgmail

Sofiztikated wrote: »

To be fair, socks and sandals are enough of a contraceptive, and we already have a right to access them.

Remember when contraceptives were going to ruin Ireland?

Woman bringing condoms down from belfast on the train and waving them at the customs officers. Good times.

NuMarvel

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Remember when contraceptives were going to ruin Ireland?

Not that old, sorry :D

BarleySweets

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's definitely available up to a point in Iran, but not "on demand"

Yep, not available on demand in a lot of the more religiously conservative countries but the Islamic view on the unborn is the polar opposite of the Christian view: save the unborn if you can but the mother’s life is more important than the life of the unborn. So following that ideal, abortion is available to at least that level in all Muslim countries, with the more lax/secular countries allowing more levels of “on demand”-ness depending on how lax/secular their general population happens to be.

(As with all third-world-ish countries: if you’ve got cash, connections, or both, you’ll get an abortion if you want one because laws and restrictions are for poor people. But, no matter where you are and no matter how rich or poor, every mother gets access to, at the very least, an abortion if her life is threatened by a pregnancy.)

ohnonotgmail

BarleySweets wrote: »

Yep, not available on demand in a lot of the more religiously conservative countries but the Islamic view on the unborn is the polar opposite of the Christian view: save the unborn if you can but the mother’s life is more important than the life of the unborn. So following that ideal, abortion is available to at least that level in all Muslim countries, with the more lax/secular countries allowing more levels of “on demand”-ness depending on how lax/secular their general population happens to be.

(As with all third-world-ish countries: if you’ve got cash, connections, or both, you’ll get an abortion if you want one because laws and restrictions are for poor people. But, no matter where you are and no matter how rich or poor, every mother gets access to, at the very least, an abortion if her life is threatened by a pregnancy.)

so the same as here then?

baylah17

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

That sounds great, but there are plenty of examples in our law and society where the unborn are not regarded as being as important as all other stages of life.

In our constitution, the unborn's right to life is secondary to the freedom to travel; there's no equivalent constitutional provision for the right to life of the born. Every year, hundreds of women of women import pills for illegal abortions but no one is calling for their prosecution. In fact, some on the No side have called for these women to be decriminalised. Imagine the reaction if the same happened for homicides. And some unborn have no constitutional or legal protection whatsoever; nobody bats an eyelid to that.

How can you advocate a No vote on the basis that the unborn is the same as the rest of us, when a No vote perpetuates a status quo in which the unborn is not the same as the rest of us?

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

So you're saying legalising something that women are already doing will lead to the downfall of society. That sounds eerily similar to arguments made against previous societal changes. :rolleyes:

Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy
Lol

Zubeneschamali

BarleySweets wrote: »

the Islamic view on the unborn is the polar opposite of the Christian view: save the unborn if you can but the mother’s life is more important than the life of the unborn.

This is not really the Christian view, it is historically the Roman Catholic view. Every other Christian church was opposed to the 8th back in 1983 for this reason.

(Of course, that does not mean the others are pro-abortion).

BarleySweets

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the same as here then?

In a way (because yeah, Irish women need to be able to afford to travel to the UKto access an abortion or even to buy the pills and have them shipped here) but not really, unless Irish women can rock up to an Irish hospital/clinic and pull strings to get an abortion? As far as I know, it’s just totally not available here unless the mother is literally going to be the next Savita and there are a number of doctors ready to go to court to prove that, right?

ohnonotgmail

BarleySweets wrote: »

In a way (because yeah, Irish women need to be able to afford to travel to the UKto access an abortion or even to buy the pills and have them shipped here) but not really, unless Irish women can rock up to an Irish hospital/clinic and pull strings to get an abortion? As far as I know, it’s just totally not available here unless the mother is literally going to be the next Savita and there are a number of doctors ready to go to court to prove that, right?

no that is true but being poor makes it a lot more difficult for an irish woman to get a abortion.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

That's not what I asked, no deflections here.

Do you think that the image RobertKK posted is an exact representation of what an actual 12 week fetus (the one I posted for reference) looks like, yes or no?

That's the question I asked, I didn't ask for a whole spiel behind it, I asked if you thought it was accurate. Why deflect?

I don't know, but I would imagine if one is real and one is a model of what a foetus looks like, i'd imagine the real one is more accurate.

Even if both photos show a model of what a foetus looks like rather than an actual foetus, it doesn't take away from the issue that it is a living being, and for the abortion to be successful, its life has to be ended.

Why does the stage of development matter, unless you are arguing that its ok to end its life, on the basis of its size.

No matter what size it is, it is a living being, that if not aborted, will undergo human development before and after birth.

In both stages of development, depicted in the photos - even if one photo is a real photo and one photo is a model of what a foetus looks like - a foetus is a living being, and in abortion its life is ended.

If not aborted, and its life not ended, if will undergo human development before and after birth.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

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

That is reductionist though. And why even stop there. It it chemistry that gives rise to the possibility of our biology. It is physics that gives rise to the possibility of chemistry. And so forth.

And physics, chemistry and biology is in play all over the world, throughout the kingdoms of flora and fauna around us. I see no reason to revere it in isolation, or give any of it rights just for the sake of it.

No the source of rights and morals and ethics appears to be human sentience and consciousness (except of course to those people who subscribe to the entirely unsubstantiated notion of there being a god). The application of them is done by sentience and consciousness. The business rights and morality are in is the mediation of the actions and well being of sentient and conscious creatures.

And in the light of all that, in the context of abortion, I see no reason to afford any rights.... or moral and ethical concern.... to a 12 week old fetus. Even in isolation. Let alone relative to the rights, choices, freedoms and well being of the only ACTUAL conscious sentient agent in the equation. The pregnant woman.

And I think vague words that encompass much like "biology" moves us away from the substance of that point and into more handy wavy arbitrary territory where no resolution or progress is likely to be found.

BarleySweets

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not really the Christian view, it is historically the Roman Catholic view. Every other Christian church was opposed to the 8th back in 1983 for this reason.

(Of course, that does not mean the others are pro-abortion).

Tell that to Teresa May’s non-Catholic pals north of the border! They’d have you believe that Roman Catholics don’t just love abortions but we eat babies for our tea every Sunday!

Ah yeah the Catholics are hardline anti but the prods are no different even if they weren’t in favor of the 8th. Most of the American cash being funneled over here to fund PL activities appears to be coming from Protestant communities rather than Catholic ones.

That’s why I lumped in all Christians as opposing abortion, because per-capita, relative to Muslims, it’s practically all practicing Christians who hold the belief that the life of the unborn takes preference with varying levels of how much they want to tolerate abortion depending pretty much on how pious they are; the most pious of both Catholics & Protestants being hardline anti abortion, all the way up to lax Protestants who’d be open to tolerating “lifestyle abortions”. On the other hand: I, a heathen, don’t just tolerate “lifestyle abortions”, I’d encourage “lifestyle abortions” because why should anyone expect a woman to become a mother if she doesn’t want to?!

Whereas 100% of Muslims believe everything from lifestyle abortions if they’re religiously lax, but at the very least, even the most hardline pious Muslims will believe that abortion is a preferable outcome to the mother dying while pregnant.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

At a marco level it is important to the human race, clearly. That is somewhat stating the blatantly obvious. At a micro level however a single stage of life in a single individual is not important in the slightest.

However you appeal to the very thing that I make central to the entire argument. What makes something "important"? It is not important to the universe. The universe could not care less. Actually caring about things, thinking them important or relevant or valuable.... that comes from consciousness and sentience. Ours.

Every where you turn in this debate, every argument you (try to) make in it.... as soon as we dig into it we find the values and relevance comes from the very thing the 12 week old fetus does not have.

What does it mean to value anything, what does the valuing, and what is it we should value? I think the answer to this lies in the well being of sentient creatures. And it is entirely and solely to the well being of sentient creatures our policies and agendas should orient.

The pregnant woman is an entirely conscious and sentient agent.

The 12 week old fetus is not, and does not even have yet many of the pre-requisites of being one.

So I entirely value the choices, freedoms and well being of the woman. I do not value any of it for a fetus. And you appear ENTIRELY unable to explain why I might or should.

RobertKK wrote: »

The irony is immigration is then needed

Bully for them. If demographics are a problem for a country they should of course find ways to work on that. But that does not place any onus on people who do not want to have a child to do so.

To take that approach you would do what all too many right wing christian groups do..... basically reduce women to nothing but societies incubators that should put out and shut up. In fact I was only listening to former White Supremacist Christian Picciolini talk about how that was EXACTLY the attitude his old cohort used to have to women. Their sole role in life was to produce more white male warriors for the herd.

You can keep that attitude, along with your similarly foundation fear of immigration. No one here wants either I suspect.

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

That is just a bull and tosh little narrative. To go extinct our species would have to reach %s of abortion that are unimaginable by the standards of today. Abortion when it comes to pregnancy is currently BY FAR the exception not the rule and it would take so many changes to human society and the human narrative to reverse that dynamic that many other things are likely to kill us off before we even reach that stage.

But similar to my previous attempts to ask you for your workings behind an assertion, I am going to assume you have diddly squat of the sort to offer for this one too. The simple fact is NO ONE is "deciding to just kill all non sentient human in any form". What they ARE doing is saying we should have that OPTION at an individual level when it is required. And taking that option is, as I said, far more the exception than the rule.

The reality you hide from in every post is that the pro choice and anti choice side of this debate SHARE the common goal of having little or no abortion in society. It does not serve your agenda to acknowledge that fact. And the well being of woman AND babies is not at all served by people of your ilk refusing to acknowledge that. But it remains a fact none the less.

Yeah_Right

I always thought Muslims considered abortion to be haram (not sure on the spelling) or forbidden. Unless the father or husband decided it was necessary in which case the woman doesn't have choice.

Triceratops Ballet

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I always thought Muslims considered abortion to be haram (not sure on the spelling) or forbidden. Unless the father or husband decided it was necessary in which case the woman doesn't have choice.

I think in muslim countries it really depends on what regime is running the show at any given time, some are more/less liberal than others

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

I don't know, but I would imagine if one is real and one is a model of what a foetus looks like, i'd imagine the real one is more accurate.

Even if both photos show a model of what a foetus looks like rather than an actual foetus, it doesn't take away from the issue that it is a living being, and for the abortion to be successful, its life has to be ended.

Why does the stage of development matter, unless you are arguing that its ok to send its life, on the basis of its size.

No matter what size it is, it is a living being, that if not aborted, will undergo human development before and after birth.

In both stages of development, depicted in the photos - even if one photo is a real photo and one photo is a model of what a foetus looks like - a foetus is a living being, and in abortion its life is ended.

If not aborted, and its life not ended, if will undergo human development before and after birth.

One is real, the other is a completely inaccurate representation of what the real fetus looks like.

Look at those two photos, are you telling me that RobertKK was posting a factual picture by saying "this is what an unborn 12 week fetus looks like"? Are you telling me that you do not see massive, significant differences between the two?

I don't give a toss about your pro-life mantra spiel, I'm asking you a question and you are avoiding giving definitive answer.

You're purposefully deflecting here, is RobertKK's image an accurate representation of the actual 12 week fetus image I posted, yes or no?

Answer the question I am asking you, definitively, examine the two pictures, tell me your findings.