Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP
Comments
-
pleas advice wrote: »That's being a bit obtuse though...
It isn't really. That number is constantly flaunted by pro-life to further their agenda but they never take into consideration that no statistics are recorded for miscarriages. They're basically saying 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion, so what, the other 4 are perfectly healthy?
Do you see my point? You can't use a statistic like that and completely disregard that part of a pregnancy. It isn't fair on either side to use that argument.0 -
robarmstrong wrote: »pleas advice wrote: »That's being a bit obtuse though...
It isn't really. That number is constantly flaunted by pro-life to further their agenda but they never take into consideration that no statistics are recorded for miscarriages. They're basically saying 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion, so what, the other 4 are perfectly healthy?
Do you see my point? You can't use a statistic like that and completely disregard that part of a pregnancy. It isn't fair on either side to use that argument.
That is a fair point, however it is a huge % of the recorded pregnancies. As I said before I can't see Ireland been any better than England if it's made legal. That I will concede is only my opinion.0 -
alan partridge aha wrote: »That is a fair point, however it is a huge % of the recorded pregnancies. As I said before I can't see Ireland been any better than England if it's made legal. That I will concede is only my opinion.
I've done the math based on statistics of 1 in every 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. I rounded up the number of abortions and live births and got around 890,000 (just evened out to avoid nitty gritty). I then divided that by .75 and got over a million. So it closes out with abortions accounting for 1 in every 10 pregnancies basically.
EDIT: not saying I'm right with this, we'll never know, but going by proven statistics then this would be a more accurate stance.0 -
If 1 in 4 miscarry, it's more like 1 in 7 end in abortion0
-
pleas advice wrote: »If 1 in 4 miscarry, it's more like 1 in 7 end in abortion
1 in 7 sounds a whole lot less frightening than 1 in 5. That is assuming that our figures are correct. I can only find figures for 2016 I've searched everywhere but I don't think they have been released.
midnight maths is not my strong point, apologies.0 -
Advertisement
-
robarmstrong wrote: »No wriggling out of this one Jack.
All I want from you, is a "Yes, she should have to continue the pregnancy" or a "No, she should not have to continue the pregnancy".
You're avoiding it Jack because you know one completely discredits your ideology, whilst the other paints yourself in a terrible, terrible picture.
I believe yes she should have continue her pregnancy, aided by the state in whatever way possible as she nor anyone has the authority to end life. What we need in Ireland is better support for these vulnerable women , not abortion which is essentially baby killing. I know I’m in for all sorts of derogatory names such as women hater etc but their false, I’m not a woman hater, I happen to have a girlfriend, I just believe nobody has the authority to take the life of another, simple as that0 -
No woman should be compelled to involuntary carry through an unwanted pregnancy.
It really is that simple.0 -
alan partridge aha wrote: »robarmstrong wrote: »alan partridge aha wrote: »Well then there's nothing more to be said, I really hope you're right but I think not.
That's okay, I really hope I'm right too as I've not seen a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, thanks for your input though.
Whats the focus on abortion being a multimillion euro industry. If it will be available in private clinics then it will be no different than private clinics for other medical procedures. I dont agree that it will become a multi million euro industry here, but even if it did, whats your point?0 -
robarmstrong wrote: »1 in 7 sounds a whole lot less frightening than 1 in 5. That is assuming that our figures are correct. I can only find figures for 2016 I've searched everywhere but I don't think they have been released.
midnight maths is not my strong point, apologies.
Maths can be manipulated or massaged to suit many arguments,
The ratio of choice abortions as against live birth figures for England and Wales in 2015 would be quite high if equated to abortion statistics.
185824 abortions by choice it seems in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/abortion-rate-england-and-wales-five-year-high
I looked up the birth rate for that year, I got 697852, that's live births, it doesent mention still born, but if you used just those two figures, the abortion rate sounds very high?0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »I believe yes she should have continue her pregnancy, aided by the state in whatever way possible as she nor anyone has the authority to end life. What we need in Ireland is better support for these vulnerable women , not abortion which is essentially baby killing. I know I’m in for all sorts of derogatory names such as women hater etc but their false, I’m not a woman hater, I happen to have a girlfriend, I just believe nobody has the authority to take the life of another, simple as that
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
pleas advice wrote: »That's being a bit obtuse though...
No it’s not really. The claim is about how ALL pregnancies end. Miscarriage is one way a pregnancy can end and should be included in the numbers. The problem lies in the use of the word ALL, when it is very clear that the numbers do not include all. It’s therefore biased.
However, it did bring one though into my head. Abortions do happen and not in unsubstantial numbers. This means that they are very much a wanted and needed service. For whatever reason, be it medical, financial or personal, these women did not want to be pregnant.0 -
If abortion services are worth x amount of money to the economy in the UK, so what? That's the same way any other paid for medical service is worth money to the economy.
If 1 in 5 or 1 in 7 or 1 in 10 pregnancies end in abortion in the UK, again, so what? That means the service is needed and used and necessary.
Our women deserve better than how we have been treated for too long now.0 -
No it’s not really. The claim is about how ALL pregnancies end. Miscarriage is one way a pregnancy can end and should be included in the numbers. The problem lies in the use of the word ALL, when it is very clear that the numbers do not include all. It’s therefore biased.
However, it did bring one though into my head. Abortions do happen and not in unsubstantial numbers. This means that they are very much a wanted and needed service. For whatever reason, be it medical, financial or personal, these women did not want to be pregnant.
That's probably a better argument than trying to rubbish figures, true choice would mean the numbers should be immaterial.
Both sides are trying to come up with figures to suit their argument, its not all that important really, if you're against abortion 1 is too many, if your for choice, then the figures shouldn't matter at all.0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »robarmstrong wrote: »No wriggling out of this one Jack.
All I want from you, is a "Yes, she should have to continue the pregnancy" or a "No, she should not have to continue the pregnancy".
You're avoiding it Jack because you know one completely discredits your ideology, whilst the other paints yourself in a terrible, terrible picture.
I believe yes she should have continue her pregnancy, aided by the state in whatever way possible as she nor anyone has the authority to end life. What we need in Ireland is better support for these vulnerable women , not abortion which is essentially baby killing. I know I’m in for all sorts of derogatory names such as women hater etc but their false, I’m not a woman hater, I happen to have a girlfriend, I just believe nobody has the authority to take the life of another, simple as that0 -
We cannot control what is legal in other jurisdictions and we cannot prosecute people for crimes they committed in other jurisdictions. We can’t prosecute someone who goes to Brussel’s to smoke weed just as we can’t prosecute someone who goes to England for an abortion.
The government shouldn’t be able to restrict a person from traveling who has not committed a crime as a matter of personal liberty. This doesn’t make what they’re doing any more morally acceptable.
The focus should be on enforcing the law and enforcing a moral standard that killing a foetus is wrong.
I believe Ireland also has sex tourism legislation too.
So we could prosecute Irish woman that have abortions elsewhere, but we don't. We don't because there isn't an appetite for it, and most people believe abortion is something that needs to be available to women in some circumstances.
I think the anti-choice brigade don't argue for prosecutions of this nature, or repeal of the 21st (or some other mechanism to stop travel) for a number of reasons. First, it allows them to (incorrectly) argue that Ireland is abortion free, giving them some kind of moral superiority over other countries that respect the needs of their women. Secondly, because they realise it is an argument they will live and makes them look like monsters.
I guess when you are trying to interfere with the rights of 50% of the population you have to pick you fights, eh?
MrP0 -
Never does the born baby, so their life should be a choice too...
A born infant can be given for adoption or into state care if the parent can no longer care for it. Nothing similar is possible with a pregnancy. If a woman feels she cannot continue with a pregnancy there is only one option.0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »I believe yes she should have continue her pregnancy, aided by the state in whatever way possible as she nor anyone has the authority to end life. What we need in Ireland is better support for these vulnerable women , not abortion which is essentially baby killing. I know I’m in for all sorts of derogatory names such as women hater etc but their false, I’m not a woman hater, I happen to have a girlfriend, I just believe nobody has the authority to take the life of another, simple as that
So, do you think your girlfriend should be refused some medical treatment because she is, say 7 weeks pregnant?0 -
Exactly, the Supreme Court overruled the injunction. This can be used as a legal basis to ensure the right for every other woman to travel for abortion. Again, the 13th wasn’t necessary but it helps with legal certainty. Note I never said in any post that it was a bad thing to have it.
Did you even read what was posted? it can't be used as a legal basis for every other woman to travel. They only struck down the injunction because the girl was suicidal and therefore there was a rise to her life. They actually said that had she not been suicidal the injunction would have been perfectly valid and legal. Seriously, do some reading.
MrP0 -
Did you even read what was posted? it can't be used as a legal basis for every other woman to travel. They only struck down the injunction because the girl was suicidal and therefore there was a rise to her life. They actually said that had she not been suicidal the injunction would have been perfectly valid and legal. Seriously, do some reading.
MrP
He is banned from the thread so no point in replying to him.0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »I believe yes she should have continue her pregnancy, aided by the state in whatever way possible as she nor anyone has the authority to end life. What we need in Ireland is better support for these vulnerable women , not abortion which is essentially baby killing. I know I’m in for all sorts of derogatory names such as women hater etc but their false, I’m not a woman hater, I happen to have a girlfriend, I just believe nobody has the authority to take the life of another, simple as that
Thanks for answering that question finally Jack.
So you've destroyed any credibility you have in this argument with such a ridiculous and outdated belief.
I hope your partner or your future daughters won't be subjected your medieval mindset.0 -
Advertisement
-
alan partridge aha wrote: »robarmstrong wrote: »And are you so naive to think that this will not happen here.
Cancer treatment is a multi million industry too. Should we ban cancer treatment?
MrP0 -
He is banned from the thread so no point in replying to him.
Banning them from the threads won't stop them continuing through PM's, already had to report a certain banned individual from going after me in mail going fire and brimstone about their barbaric belief.
I think posters like this from the pro-life side aren't doing themselves any favours in the eyes of the undecided.
I don't think "a pregnancy conceived out of rape must be forced to continue" is an intelligent argument for a pro-life cause, and any rational person who reads that is going to realise just how depraved that actually sounds once read out loud.
If they read even half of what they write out loud in front of others (particularly women) I wonder would they even then realise the sheer absurdity of what they're spouting...0 -
He is banned from the thread so no point in replying to him.
I know that now, sorry, I replied before I got to the bit where he was banned.
Also, is it not worth pointing out where a poster has said something blatantly wrong? I appreciate they can't respond, but it is worth pointing out the error so other people can see it was wrong...
MrP0 -
robarmstrong wrote: »Banning them from the threads won't stop them continuing through PM's, already had to report a certain banned individual from going after me in mail going fire and brimstone about their barbaric belief.
I think posters like this from the pro-life side aren't doing themselves any favours in the eyes of the undecided.
I don't think "a pregnancy conceived out of rape must be forced to continue" is an intelligent argument for a pro-life cause, and any rational person who reads that is going to realise just how depraved that actually sounds once read out loud.
If they read even half of what they write out loud in front of others (particularly women) I wonder would they even then realise the sheer absurdity of what they're spouting...
Thankfully I've only ever had supportive PM's from these types of threads.0 -
Thankfully I've only ever had supportive PM's from these types of threads.
The lack of empathy and understanding that is shown by certain pro-life posters towards what you went through and what erica74 went through is alarming. Any reasonable person would relate to it and be supportive.
Key word there being "reasonable"...0 -
Ismisejack wrote: »Very quick I must say, your right in what you say I lost my password login for that account so this is me now. The eighth has saved ismisejack the same as DaBoss in that case! The eighth saved my live as it made abortion inconvenient
Calling that "saving" you is a little bit of propaganda spin really though. There are people alive today who would otherwise not have been but for the fact contraception was once illegal too. It is not that the contraception ban "saved" their lives so much as it assisted to compel the parents in question to create them.
People saying "I would not be alive today if it was not for contraception being illegal" did not........ nor should it have............ stopped repeal of those archaic and harmful laws. So why do you feel it particularly should do so here either?0 -
In time I think what some people view as moderate abortion proposals now will in time be viewed as being extreme.
Do you have that backwards from what you meant to write? Given your position on abortion I would have thought you meant that allowing abortion now means that things we see as extreme NOW are in danger of becoming moderate in our view in the future?
Either way I do not think many people are convinced by the slippery slope fallacy when it comes to abortion debate. There is simply enough countries where abortion has been legalized, with and without specific limits (compare the UK to Canada for example) and a world of horror simply has not arisen in that time.
So when slippery slope nonsense is peddled in a thread like this it comes across as little more than scare mongering by those with no actual anti abortion arguments.It has happened in countries where abortion was legalised, abortion rates go up.
Hard to know what you mean here as you seem to have decided not to offer any citations. There are a few possible meanings but two main ones spring to mind. You either mean abortion rates in that country go up, or the number of people actually getting abortions in that country goes up.
The former is a statement of the bleeding obvious. If X is not allowed in a country and then you suddenly allow X, then of course the number of people doing X will go up.
The latter is more nuanced however as we currently have people getting abortions elsewhere, like the UK. So to suggest making abortion by choice legal in Ireland would make THAT number go up would need some actual citations and data. Neither of which you have offered nor, I somewhat suspect, do you likely have.Abortion has led to discrimination against girls in some countries, where we see being an unborn female is the reason to be aborted.
That is a MASSIVE causal assertion that I would love to see you back up. You are outright asserting that it is abortion that has lead to the discrimination rather than, say, the discrimination leading to that particular use of abortion. Can you substantiate the claim that the causal link here actually goes in the direction you have indicated. Because the implications of getting that right and wrong are far from small.
What I think reality shows, rather than your agenda driven spin on it, is that abortion does not CAUSE any poor attitudes to gender selective parenting...... but it's use a symptom of a problem that is already there in those cultures. And we should work to change those cultures away from that in any way we can.
But we are NOT such a culture, and the scare mongering tactic of suggesting abortion in Ireland (which is what this thread is about remember) will somehow nurture such a gender selecting culture is as crass and desperate as it is unlikely. Which is to say, very.I feel I had enough, then return but it usually the same people posting but being pro-life you get called names, the mods do their best. I don't see pro-life people calling pro-choice people, pro-death. Some pro-choice say anti-choice, which is ironic when abortion removes the choice for the unborn to remain alive.
Two things here.
The first is that there ARE people using things like "pro death" and "pro abortion" to name call the other side. I was called "anti life" myself only last week on the first part of this very thread. The fact YOU do not see it happening can only be selective reading.
The second, on the subject of selective reading, is that I very much agree with you that it is poor form when the people I see as being on "my side" resort to insults. Even if the frustration caused by the lack of good faith in which many anti-choice speakers have engaged with the issue explains that, it does not justify it. And I feel let down by them when it happens. BUT I think there is a lot of selective reading in this from people like yourself too. In that so convinced are they by the narrative of insult that they only respond to and rise to the insulting messages that confirm that narrative. But they wholesale ignore the ones that do not.
So I for example have made NUMEROUS posts to such people, without a single insult or demeaning comment in them..... and those posts have been ignored in favor of the ones that DO contain the insults and rhetoric that people like yourself are scanning for.
So it goes both ways. SOME people do let themselves down in their rhetoric and this is sad, but some people then use those people as a justification to ignore the ones NOT doing it too.
So both sides can improve in this regard I warrant. Yourself included? As it makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you want to improve things than rather than reply to the poor form posts why not ignore them and reply to the well formed ones? Then if someone wants a reply from you, they are forced to up their game.0 -
robarmstrong wrote: »If they read even half of what they write out loud in front of others (particularly women) I wonder would they even then realise the sheer absurdity of what they're spouting...
In fairness, there are many women who are also against abortion in the case of rape.
Seen the following trailer recently and in it you see many of those who have even been conceived in rape speak out against abortion too.
I personally feel it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion if they are pregnant from rape, as I don't feel it's right that someone should be made to carry a baby which has resulted from a violent act......... but, I do feel the views of these people at least deserve to be listened to and considered by people before they decide which way it is they want to vote. Have an opinion, by all means, but make it an informed one.0 -
While I am happy about that result of the poll on this thread. And of course I am happy with trolls who are here not not discuss but to simply em troll being banned. However sometimes I worry I am surrounded by too many of my friends who are pro choice and pro repeal.
What I am trying to say is that sometimes I worry I am discussing #repealthe8th in an echo chamber.
So that's why I find it really useful to hear some of the "stuff" posters like ismisejack, robertkk, graces7, outlaw pete et al are saying.
I am hoping they and their views are in the minority.
But! It does show we cannot be complacent. I am attending my first repeal canvass group this week or next week (my night college schedule is in the way) and I determined to get out on the doorsteps and have conversations with people.
I'm wearing my repeal jumper as much as possible. And I'm doing a good bit of tweeting and blogging.
Anyone else got anything going on to stop the complacency setting in?!0 -
Advertisement
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Before anyone votes I really wish they would make sure to make themselves fully aware of just how developed fetuses are during the latter stages of the first trimester. It's substantially more than many would like you to believe.
Which "many" is this? Could you cite "many" users doing this? Let's start with 10 and see how close you get. Because generally it seems to me that people talking openly about the developmental stages of the fetus at 12-16 weeks are ABUNDANTLY clear and accurate as to what those features are.
The distortions actually comes from people trying to make it sound like it is MORE developed than it actually is. Often, like you yourself are egregiously guilty of for example, by lifting descriptive rhetorical sentences out of studies that make it sound like more is going on that there actually is. Sentences that, in isolation, sound like they are saying a LOT more than they are.
You list things (bodies, limbs, organs, heartbeat, DNA) that I am not seeing anyone, let alone "many" denying or hiding or in any way obfuscating at all. Rather the things you list are not things that should be eliciting moral and ethical concern in pro-choice speakers.
So yes, by all means let us be 100% totally entirely accurate as to what is going on at 12-16 weeks gestation. I want everyone to know. Because nothing I know of, let alone anything you have offered, is happening at that stage that I think supports any anti abortion rhetoric at all. Which is why the anti-choice side quickly and often move to discussions of not what the fetus IS but what they imagine it will BECOME.Outlaw Pete wrote: »It may be at the very beginning of it's life, but it's still their life. Why (unless necessary to save the life of it's mother) should that baby be deemed so unimportant that it should be legal to take their life in such a nonchalant fashion?
Odd that you should ask this given how many times it has been answered directly to you in the past. But I am more than happy to answer it again.
We kill life, actual walking around happily living their life life, all the time. We do it in our meat industry in the 1000s. We do it to trees and vegetables also in large numbers in our food and paper industries. We do it by the millions in insecticides. We do it in the billions in medicine. We end life ALL the time, and we are pretty much "nonchalant" about it in your words.
So the question becomes, when we have exceptions to that rule....... on what basis do we do so? When we value Life over life, and single certain types of it out for protections that other life lacks..... what are the attributes and foundations upon which we do that?
I have explored that question deeply, and explained to you on numerous occasions the fruits of that labor. And I am happy to do so again on request. But to summarize it quickly: EVERY attribute I have found that sensibly mediates those specific moral and ethical concerns are attributes the fetus at 12-16 weeks simply lacks. Not just partially lacks but the fetus WHOLLY lacks those attributes AND many of their pre-requisites too.
Now while you might disagree with some part of that, though you have never been clear what and more importantly why, I genuinely see no utility in feigning ignorance about it.Outlaw Pete wrote: »that doesn't excuse the dispassion of prochoicers.
There is nothing TO excuse. You are merely asserting based on nothing that passion is warranted and then demanding justification from those who do not have it. It does not work like that.
I am intensely passionate about human morality and ethics. More so than you pretend to be I suspect. But I am also focused not just on morality and ethics but what they are FOR, and what they are applied TO and most importantly WHY.
And the results of all that means that I am passionate about what there is actually genuine and coherent reasons to be passionate about. Which is quite simply the well being of sentient creatures. No more. No less. If morality is "for" anything then it has to be that. Otherwise what the hell is it?
The fetus is no such entity however. Therefore no passion is warranted, let alone to the level we have to "excuse" ourselves for anything. And in your rush to Virtue Signal your own capacity for compassion it seems what needs to actually be "excused" is the lack of compassion shown to those who actually warrant it (the pregnant woman).... in deference to something that does not (the fetus).
Passion is a good thing. Being passionate just for the sake of being passionate, or to be seen to be passionate..... not so much. I am every bit as passionate as you, perhaps more so. I just contrive to be abundantly clear about where my passion is directed, and on what justifiable and meaningful basis.... rather than simply spew passion for it's own end and it's own sake.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Sentience is a philosophical argument. That's why ambulance personal don't look for it at the scene of an accident.
Straw-manning the sentience argument does not magically make it a red herring. Mainly because there is a core and powerful distinction you contrive to simply gloss over in your "ambulance" comparison.
The difference between a fetus and a living victim at the scene of an accident is a massive one. The latter HAS the faculty of sentience. Nothing to do with it's current operational status, it is still there. The fetus however does not have it, has never had it, and is yet some time off ever having it.
If I recall correctly you are something of a Star Trek fan. I remember the episode well (one of the best Stewart performances I can think of other than maybe the double torture episode and the one where he lived an entire second life playing the flute) where he argued for the sentience of Commander Data, Mr. "I am operating within normal parameters" himself. Were ANY of his arguments based on Data having (or not having) limbs or a heart? Or were they couched on his sentience and his having of individual goals and concerns? And do you understand how and why a coma patient or injury victim is still a sentient entity just not "operating within normal parameters"?
So the comparison you offer here simply fails and does not hold. The Red Herring is being fried up in your kitchen, nor ours.Outlaw Pete wrote: »If a woman miscarries, she will generally say she has lost her baby.
This is the salad and Pommes to go with the Herring though. You are attempting to conflate people's use of terminology with the actual meanings of terminology. Leo V did this too in the press and he was as wrong to do so there as you are here.
Yes, people use the word "baby" during pregnancy and often after losing one. We are a narrative driven species and we use words that conform to our narratives. And our narratives around pregnancy, emotionally, are built on the baby we imagine it producing rather than on the pregnancy itself which is for the most part invisible to us.
But in a debate about abortion we are MORE than warranted at exploring what words they use..... what the implications of the used words are...... and which of those implications are warranted and which are simply being used as emotive nonsense in lieu of actual anti-abortion arguments.
Again this has been explained to you on numerous occasions however. So once again I question your motivations in choosing to feign ignorance about these explanations. Similarly I am not sure why you are feigning ignorance on late term pregnancies where you know the move is generally to terminate the PREGNANCY and not terminate the baby. So why you are here asking "women should be able to kill the babies they are carrying at ANY stage of their pregnancy?? Even the week of delivery??" is unclear to me. Especially given in a later post you accuse others of missing your points deliberately. We err towards pot and kettle stuff there.Outlaw Pete wrote: »So these people do not believe what they are saying as they themselves don't think all pregnant women should be able to do what they like with their pregnancies.
This too has been answered for you on numerous occasions.
As I have told you before, my complete and open freedom to swing my arms and fists around ends at your face. Why? Because people should have completely free reign over their own choices and own body until such time that their choices impact on the well being and/or rights of another sentient agent.
The moment that happens their freedoms, rights and choices should be curtailed proportionately as a result. This is generally what people mean when they say women should be able to do what they want with their own body/pregnancy. And it explained entirely why most such people are ok with termination of a fetus at 12 weeks but not 38 weeks.
But as has been explained to you on numerous occasions A) No one is proposing any legislation to allow termination at 38 weeks andEven when terminating at such late stages we terminate the pregnancy not the fetus. We delivery a living baby.
So your issue here is on one hand entirely erroneous and on the other hand irrelevant for a number of reasons. And AT BEST all you can be said to be doing here is complaining in a pedantic fashion about HOW people make their points rather than engaging in WHAT their point actually is.Outlaw Pete wrote: »At what stage do we feel it should be okay to still the heartbeat of a baby developing in the womb?
At any stage where we can say with as much scientific certainty as we can that the faculty of Human Sentience has simply not come into play. As soon as doubt comes into play on that question our willingness to engage with the process of termination should decline in direct proportion to this.
The near totality of abortions sought purely by choice are performed WELL within that criteria. In or before week 16 of gestation. There is no basis there for moral and ethical concern. Least of all in emotive approached like "Look at its little fingers" or "Look how music influences the movement of it's tongue".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?
For the same reason that my garden implement is not "cake". Because that is not what the word genocide means or at least has come to mean in our culture. For example "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" have come to the conclusion that it involves "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
This does not map AT ALL into putting the choices into numerous individual hands as to whether they themselves wish to continue with the pregnancy to produce a child with DS. The use of the word "genocide" can merely be classed with your other numerous attempts at emotive, rather than substantive, moves in this topic.
There are of course many definitions on offer and there are some individuals, like Pieter N. Drost which likely offer ones closer to your liking. So of course a pedantic trawling of definitions to offer a weak justification for the use of that word is certainly possible..... but overall the general trend in the use of that word, definitions of that word, and the historic events of horror attached to that word..... make it's use in this context emotive rather than substantive. It adds nothing by it's use and obfuscates much, which I grant may be your intention.Outlaw Pete wrote: »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?
It depends what you mean by "ok". I think you need to make a STARK distinction between the judgement of whether someone should be allowed do "X" and the judgement of their motivations for doing "X". I think very often they are massively different things.
For example I believe in your right to drink coca cola. You might however contrive to drink so much of it a day that you develop conditions like obesity and diabetes and others for which you could maybe claim disability allowances or something.
Now I would find horrific and immoral your motivation for drinking coca cola therefore. But I would still absolutely support your right to drink it.
Similarly you might contrive to find extreme, pedantic and unlikely motivations (like "race" above) as to why someone might seek an abortion here in Ireland. And I would indeed question the morality of SOME of those motivations were people to actually show up displaying them.
But it would still say ZERO to me on the discussion of whether they, let alone people as a whole in general who do not have such extreme or questionable motivations, should have a right to seek abortions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement