Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

neonsofa

infogiver wrote: »

2 kids €254.80.
You can work and earn €110 per week and keep all your lone parent.
If you work for 19 hours you can get FIS too.
It's actually possible to have weekly net income of nearly €500 for working 20 hours if your a lone parent.

Childcare for a baby back when my little one was a baby was 189 per week. For two kids I'd imagine the 254.80 would be gone straight away on childcare alone. The older child could qualify for ecce or be in school which would make the childcare costs lower alright but significantly limits the hours you're available to work. Try finding a job that allows you to come in at 9.30/10 and leave at 11.30/12. And that wouldn't be enough hours then to qualify for fis. In order to be in a position to work to get FIS they would need to be paying childcare which isn't adequately covered by fis. There are some community childcare schemes etc but not all creches accept them so it's pot luck on whether you can firstly use the crèche close to work (otherwise you're spending money driving out of your way to the crèche and then to work) and then again you need to be lucky enough for that creche to have a spot for either or both kids (again if not you could end up having to drive to two seperate creches), then because you're making two seperate trips to two seperate creches you have to ensure you leave in enough time to get to both creches and work in time. Some creches only open at 8. So if your limited choice in subsidised creches is one of those creches it makes things even more difficult because no matter how early you get up they will only take the child at 8 on the dot (as was the case with my child's private creche and I can assure you it made my life extremely difficult and I only had one trip to make) and then you're under pressure to get to the second creche and then work.
Don't even get me started on rent and rent supplement issues.
It is not the walk in the park with trees producing money like you make out. The reasons supports appear high(er) for lone parents is that they actually require more financial support in order to work. They don't have a partner who can watch the child while they work to save on childcare costs. Or a partner who can pay childcare costs while they cover rent. They can't share the load and so things are more difficult financially.

Woodhenge

Samaris wrote: »

A lot about the debate is hypocritical on both sides, mostly because of the extremists. But yes, that is probably the truth. We don't have a collective consensus on where life begins or whether abortion is right or not. It does become to some extent whether a baby is wanted. Yeah, that troubles me philosophically, but at the same time, it's a complicated debate full of beliefs rather than factual evidence and humans are not entirely logical and also have to live with the consequences of placing absolutes into law.

This is why we fall back on basic, fundemental human rights every time, and why it is in the constitution rather than vulnerable to attack by a slim and fleeting majority who might be in power for totally unrelated reasons.

Samaris

Woodhenge wrote: »

This is why we fall back on basic, fundemental human rights every time, and why it is in the constitution rather than vulnerable to attack by a slim and fleeting majority who might be in power for totally unrelated reasons.

Except we can't conclude where the basic human rights fall. Where were Savita Hallapanavar's human rights? Where were Ms. Y's? Where were Sheila Hodgers' human rights? Why did the first and last die of a lack of their human rights to life being respected for the sake of a pregnancy that was utterly unviable in Mrs. Hallapanavar's case and resulted in the deaths of both Ms. Hodgers and the foetus*?

Why did society choose to let them die with its poorly written and poorly-implemented laws? And the laws did not even save the pregnancies which were apparently much more important than the women involved. That's why it should be down to the individual. Society cannot be trusted with this power over individuals, not when its judgement is made on the basis of strict morality that few people agree entirely on.

*She died of multiple cancers after giving birth prematurely. She had been refused treatment for the cancer as to treat it went against the hospital's Catholic ethos protecting the pregnancy. The foetus died at birth.

Woodhenge

Samaris wrote: »

Except we can't conclude where the basic human rights fall. Where were Savita Hallapanavar's human rights? Where were Ms. Y's? Where were Sheila Hodgers' human rights? Why did the first and last die of a lack of their human rights to life being respected for the sake of a pregnancy that was utterly unviable in Mrs. Hallapanavar's case and resulted in the deaths of both Ms. Hodgers and the foetus*?

Why did society choose to let them die with its poorly written and poorly-implemented laws? And the laws did not even save the pregnancies which were apparently much more important than the women involved. That's why it should be down to the individual. Society cannot be trusted with this power over individuals, not when its judgement is made on the basis of strict morality that few people agree entirely on.

*She died of multiple cancers after giving birth prematurely. She had been refused treatment for the cancer as to treat it went against the hospital's Catholic ethos protecting the pregnancy. The foetus died at birth.

The 8th amendment says it will protect the unborn's right to life as far as practicable, balanced against the mothers right to life. That allows legislation such as the Protection of Life during Pregnacy act.

The question of hospitals with a 'Catholic Ethos' is a different question, and it is frankly bizarre and grotesque that medical decisions can be decided on religious grounds in Ireland today.

Annasopra

The guys behind this video are very unpleasant. Read this to learn more. They're just hungry for attention by trying to make people look stupid. It took them 7 hours to film the video linked in the OP. http://www.cocktailsandcocktalk.com/2016/10/named-shamed-homophobic-racist-gay-trolls-get-outed-read-to-filth/


I think the actual real bandwagon here is the tone police. "Oh my god - young people are saying x,y,z" - it's a disgrace Joe, they'll turn people to support the 8th

Annasopra

wakka12 wrote: »

This exact thing was said over and over again during the gay marriage campaign and turned out to be completely wrong

Exactly. Its a bandwagon.

Woodhenge

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. Its a bandwagon.

One of the main refrains during the Marriage Equalty debate was 'allowing this affects nobody except the couples who currently can't marry'. People can't say the same about an abortion referendum because people do see actual, physical and deliberate harm being done if abortion on demand became legal here. This would be a totally different framing of the issues.

Zubeneschamali

Woodhenge wrote: »

That allows legislation such as the Protection of Life during Pregnacy act.

Yes, which is why we must repeal the 8th - 14 years jail for ending a pregnancy with a fatal fetal abnormality.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

During the marriage referendum the yes and no campaign knew what they wanted. So it was a clear choice on what you were voting for. If you ask some of the people in involved in the repeal campaign what they wanted they'd have different opinions.
Whilst the people who want to keep the eight are all on the same page!

I think everyone in the repeal campaign wants a repeal of the 8th amendment. Thats very very clear.

Woodhenge

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The guys behind this video are very unpleasant. Read this to learn more. They're just hungry for attention by trying to make people look stupid. It took them 7 hours to film the video linked in the OP. http://www.cocktailsandcocktalk.com/2016/10/named-shamed-homophobic-racist-gay-trolls-get-outed-read-to-filth/


I think the actual real bandwagon here is the tone police. "Oh my god - young people are saying x,y,z" - it's a disgrace Joe, they'll turn people to support the 8th

You don't understand the middle ground in Ireland, if people see the ideological fanaticism that underlies a major part of the push for repeal, they will consider the 8th the only real protection we have to keep ideologues away from our laws. We had that with the influence of the church and we should always remain wary of ideologues gaining influence again.

Zubeneschamali

Woodhenge wrote: »

if abortion on demand became legal here.

Abortion on demand is a constitutional right here, you just have to be able to travel to England to avail of it.

The only people denied this right are people who cannot travel because they are too poor, people in institutions or prison, immigrants/refugees who cannot travel on their visas, children, and women in medical emergencies like Savita Halappanavar.

Of course it would be better for the women involved if they could get their abortion on demand here through their own doctor, but the 8th is not preventing abortion on demand for most Irish women, just making it later, more expensive, more awkward and more risky.

Samaris

Woodhenge wrote: »

The 8th amendment says it will protect the unborn's right to life as far as practicable, balanced against the mothers right to life. That allows legislation such as the Protection of Life during Pregnacy act.

The question of hospitals with a 'Catholic Ethos' is a different question, and it is frankly bizarre and grotesque that medical decisions can be decided on religious grounds in Ireland today.

I agree that the law intended to be more equitable. It's just -abusable-, that's the problem. The vast majority of people want certain exceptions made (on both sides) because even though it conflicts with absolutist right and wrong arguments, there's some things that just aren't justifiable to do and refusing someone life-saving medical treatment because they're pregnant is one of them. But the abusers, be it for medical, ethical or somewhat bonkers reasons, get into positions like in hospitals where they hold the woman's life in their hands and it's down to how they want to enforce the word "practicable". As it stands, it can be, has been and will be abused again. That's why I want it repealed. It is too abusable (as are the laws around it) and gives too much power to ideologues at the cost of other human beings.

Annasopra

Woodhenge wrote: »

You don't understand the middle ground in Ireland, if people see the ideological fanaticism that underlies a major part of the push for repeal, they will consider the 8th the only real protection we have to keep ideologues away from our laws. We had that with the influence of the church and we should always remain wary of ideologues gaining influence again.

Everything has an ideology behind it. Its fascinating how the tone policing bandwagoners want to portray all repealers as ideological fanatics.

20Cent

The lads who made that video are milo wannabies. Right wing extremist, fans of Tommy Robinson and other racists. They made the video to create "controversy" editing it to make the repeal side seem extreme, very easy to do just ask a loaded question and wind people up to get social media clicks.
People need to get more media savvy and see these types of videos and people as what they are just oportunists trying to make some money by hurting others.

valoren

I think back to Chris Rock and his solution to reducing gun crime.

He said that you can have the right to bear arms. So you can buy a gun and carry it around.
But to actually use it, you need bullets. And bullets, though also freely available, are insanely expensive.

Like $1,000 for a bullet. You would have to seriously think about using it unless you really had to.
Like in a self defence situation.

Same principles could be applied to abortion.

While you can legally have an abortion in the country, it would deemed a specialized operation and a costly one at that.
You would see a situation where those who become pregnant negligently and see the facilities as nothing more than asset for their lifestyle choice becoming more careful.

It would be too expensive to have an unwanted pregnancy and repeatedly get abortions.
I'm sure that is a worry for the pro-life side.

You would get to the point where you needed an additional premium on your health insurance.
So if you found yourself pregnant unintentionally, then you could claim back some of the cost.
Like those who would use expensive bullets to defend themselves, the cost becomes irrelevant in that situation.

Those who would see abortion as a lifestyle choice, those who seek to abuse the system would face higher premiums for such insurance.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

I think back to Chris Rock and his solution to reducing gun crime.

He said that you can have the right to bear arms. So you can buy a gun and carry it around.
But to actually use it, you need bullets. And bullets, though also freely available, are insanely expensive.

Like $10,000 for a bullet. You would have to seriously think about using it unless you really had to.
Like in a self defence situation.

Same principles could be applied to abortion.

FFS it was a comedy routine, not a solution.

In reality people wouldn't have money to buy bullets ($60,000 to fill a six-shooter) and couldn't use them even in self-defence.

It's an awful awful analogy.

valoren

osarusan wrote: »

FFS it was a comedy routine, not a solution.

In reality burglars would know that people wouldn't have money to buy bullets ($60,000 to fill a six-shooter) and therefore their homes would be unprotected.

It's an awful awful analogy.

Sure it's a comedy routine but the underlying message is to apply a financial aspect into the thought process that a facility or entitlement provided by the law is not open to abuse and continued abuses.

It's like discipline in schools. There is no corporal punishment anymore.
Where discipline breaks down, the perpetrators are given warnings about future behavior.
The parents are informed.
If it's not heeded then a financial penalty comes into effect with a set fine for continual misbehavior.

The idea is that it is the parents responsibility to discipline the child.
And the fines will keep on coming through the door until the child cops on in school.
The child quickly learns that there is consequences to acting the maggot in school.

Christy42

valoren wrote: »

I think back to Chris Rock and his solution to reducing gun crime.

He said that you can have the right to bear arms. So you can buy a gun and carry it around.
But to actually use it, you need bullets. And bullets, though also freely available, are insanely expensive.

Like $10,000 for a bullet. You would have to seriously think about using it unless you really had to.
Like in a self defence situation.

Same principles could be applied to abortion.

While you can legally have an abortion in the country, it would deemed a specialized operation and a costly one at that.
You would see a situation where those who become pregnant negligently and see the facilities as nothing more than asset for their lifestyle choice becoming more careful.

It would be too expensive to have an unwanted pregnancy and repeatedly get abortions.
I'm sure that is a worry for the pro-life side.

You would get to the point where you needed an additional premium on your health insurance. So if you found yourself pregnant unintentionally, then you could claim back some of the cost. Those who would see abortion as a lifestyle choice, those who seek to abuse the system would face higher premiums for such insurance.

So no abortions for poor people? Or how much of the cost could you claim back from insurance?

Maybe we could apply the same logic on the other side. Having a child is massively expensive from childcare to potentially stunting your career if you can't take on extra hours because of looking after the child. Thus we could provide cheap childcare so that people can look after the child and keep up college/work if they get a badly timed pregnancy. Reckon you will see a drop in abortions if women are not put in impossible situations.

I am pro choice but will always happily look at ways to reduce the number that make the choice of abortion.

valoren

Christy42 wrote: »

So no abortions for poor people? Or how much of the cost could you claim back from insurance?

Maybe we could apply the same logic on the other side. Having a child is massively expensive from childcare to potentially stunting your career if you can't take on extra hours because of looking after the child. Thus we could provide cheap childcare so that people can look after the child and keep up college/work if they get a badly timed pregnancy. Reckon you will see a drop in abortions if women are not put in impossible situations.

I am pro choice but will always happily look at ways to reduce the number that make the choice of abortion.

If you can't afford the price for an abortion then you would need to produce documentation from a GP or the appropriate bodies to avail of the procedure. Ideally this would indicate that the abortion is an absolute necessity and the cost is paid for by the state. As in there would be complications following the birth, or there is a health risk to the mother.

If there is continued pregnancies and where advice has been given to not get pregnant due to health factors etc then the entitlement to free procedures is lost. You would need to pay. Obviously like everything else, this would be open to abuse but there would be a framework to reduce abortions to those which are necessary.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

Sure it's a comedy routine but the underlying message is to apply a financial aspect into the thought process that a facility or entitlement provided by the law is not open to abuse and continued abuses.

Should we also deliberately inflate the price of treatment for lung and liver ailments specifically for heavy smokers and drinkers?

valoren

osarusan wrote: »

Should we also deliberately inflate the price of treatment for lung and liver ailments specifically for heavy smokers and drinkers?

It's personal repsonsibility.
If people smoke or drink to the point of requiring medical intervention then it's their own business.
I'm not seeing how addictive practices and their health consequences can be likened to the decision to have an abortion.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

It's personal repsonsibility.
If people smoke or drink to the point of requiring medical intervention then it's their own business.

That's a bit of a non-answer though.

Do you think we should inflate the costs of medical treatment in those specific cases (or in any cases where the treatment is brought about by negligence or stupidity or whatever) to act as a deterrent/get them to think about the consequences etc. or not?

Christy42

valoren wrote: »

If you can't afford the price for an abortion then you would need to produce documentation from a GP or the appropriate bodies to avail of the procedure. Ideally this would indicate that the abortion is an absolute necessity and the cost is paid for by the state. As in there would be complications following the birth, or there is a health risk to the mother.

If there is continued pregnancies and where advice has been given to not get pregnant due to health factors etc then the entitlement to free procedures is lost. You would need to pay. Obviously like everything else, this would be open to abuse but there would be a framework to reduce abortions to those which are necessary.

Define absolutely necessary.

I do always love plans that stop the people who would be affected the most by a badly timed pregnancy from getting an abortion. It is kind of like, here we will leave a way out for the well to do, can't have them suffering more than a minor inconvenience but we will demonise the poor for the same thing.

valoren

osarusan wrote: »

That's a bit of a non-answer though.

Do you think we should inflate the costs of medical treatment in those specific cases (or in any cases where the condition is brought about by negligence or stupidity or whatever) to act as a deterrent/get them to think about the consequences etc. or not?

Drinking and smoking are proven addictions.

I'm not sure how increasing the price of treatments for those ailments are going to inhibit such addictive behavior. Some people will smoke and drink to the point of ill health. It wouldn't matter if the price of treatment was 10k or 100k to inhibit that.

valoren

Christy42 wrote: »

Define absolutely necessary.

I do always love plans that stop the people who would be affected the most by a badly timed pregnancy from getting an abortion. It is kind of like, here we will leave a way out for the well to do, can't have them suffering more than a minor inconvenience but we will demonise the poor for the same thing.

That's the problem with the debate. Definitions.

What is the definiton of an abortion that is absolutely necessary?

A health risk to the mother and/or the baby I would imagine.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

Drinking and smoking are proven addictions.

I'm not sure how increasing the price of treatments for those ailments are going to inhibit such addictive behavior. Some people will smoke and drink to the point of ill health. It wouldn't matter if the price of treatment was 10k or 100k to inhibit that.

They're not addicted to them before they've ever tried them. They would know about the inflated costs before they ever started, same as a woman would know about the inflated costs of an abortion before they had sex.

So I think they are comparable.

The problem (as I see it) with your position is that it could (and consistently, should) be applied to a wide range of treatments for things caused by negligent or just stupid behaviour.

nozzferrahhtoo

me_right_one wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I personally think it is better not to overly associate with, or distance myself from, anyone. Rather I take individual views from BOTH sides and publicly agree with or refute them. Discourse can be had within a group as well as with out-groups.

I think there are some bad arguments on the pro-choice side, even though I am pro-choice myself. I have debated some of them with other pro-choice people on this forum and three others.

Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether they are used to support conclusions I agree with or not. And I think distancing myself from people in my group who make them, is a missed opportunity to improve my group as a whole.

me_right_one wrote: »

Says who, you? Or that scientist? A human LIFE is worth more than anything else.

In an age where we may even be on the cusp of creating General Artificial Intelligence, and where things like abortion are in debate, I think it pays to be a bit more specific about what we are assigning importance to.

"Life" in the biological sense is one thing. Life as in a human "life" or human "person"...... or in fact any entity that is sentience as a General AI might be........ is another. It pays to be clear exactly what is making it important or have "worth".

And I think the result of such introspection, as it was for me, is that the faculties and attributes upon which we are mediating that worth, are faculties and attributes the fetus entirely lacks.

And if anyone genuinely has any interest in swaying opinion or votes away from allowing abortion..... that is no small rhetorical hurdle to over come.

The thread is about bandwagoning, and I think rather than jump on the band wagon of pro or anti abortion, people would sometimes benefit from deeper introspection on what it is we are attaching importance to, and why.

me_right_one wrote: »

You do know what the thread is about? It ain't an abortion debate.

And yet a not even 10 posts after you write this, you write a post saying "Abortion is the deliberate ending of human life.". Which is hardly conforming to the topic of the thread either.

It seems from the outside that the thread topic is important when you are having your positions questioned or debated, but not important when you are soap boxing your opinions. Funny that.

......... wrote: »

surely you know when human life begins, and surely you can tell the difference between an unfertilized chicken egg and a human life ? because most educated adults can, and are not fooled otherwise.

Which would be interesting if it was a useful mediation point for this debate. But the issue is that "human life begins" in the biological sense and "Human life begins" in the sense of the formation and existence of an actual human "person" are entirely different things. And conflating the two as if they are the same is an error we should avoid, and call out when we see it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, and there's no 'voice' that needs to be heard more than that of the unfortunately voiceless........... the unborn developing child.

A "voice" that would be imaginary, projected, and vicarious in the case of the majority of abortions sought by choice. Because the majority of such abortions happen in or before week 12 which is SIGNIFICANTLY earlier in the process than we can coherently suggest a "person" would would even have a "voice" exists there.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sentience is a nonsense argument given that there is no scientific consensus on just what sentience is.

And I do not think absolute certainty on what it is.... is a requirement for us to have a coherent discussion about it all the same. Such a requirement is purely of your own invention.

The discussion of whether abortion is immoral or not essentially comes down to whether or not the fetus being terminated has rights or not. And if it is not "sentience" that we are assigning rights to, then what ARE we assigning them to exactly?

Sentience is not a nonsense argument, it is THE argument. You yourself claim to be essentially ok with abortion up until 12 weeks. What makes that ok if sentience is not the argument? I know why I am ok with abortion at some stages and not others. What is YOUR point of mediation on the differences?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

at the other other end of the scale some will argue that even new born babies are not yet sentient...... is it okay to kill them too?? How about people in comas who are no longer conscious. Should it be legal to kill them?

There is a distinction to be made there between a faculty of sentience existing, and it operating at full capacity. A new born baby or a coma patient are still intances of sentience, even if they are not operating at full parameters.

A pile of logic gates on my desk is not a computer. A computer on my desk that is not plugged in IS a computer, even though it is not powered or turned on.

So I do not see many people advocating for killing coma patients. But letting entirely brain dead patients on life support die...... they quite often do. The difference being that being in a coma, or even merely being asleep. does not mean you are not a sentient being with the faculty of sentience itself. You do not have less rights while you are sleeping at night than you do while awake in the day.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Surely by the criteria set by people like you

You not understanding, or misrepresenting, their criteria does not magically make your conclusions theirs. I have explained the distinction between an entity lacking sentience, and a coma patient with reduced sentience, on many threads before. I do not, for example, think that a person with a "normal" working mind like you or I, should have any more (or less) a right to life than a person born with mental deficiencies. They are all sentient entities deserving of moral and ethical concern regardless of the current state at which that sentience is in operation.

I think you do yourself no justice at all to come into this thread acting like you have never had it explained before.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

2) you would have to charge people with an intention of doing something

Yes, and it is complete nonsense to mediate rights on future possibilities rather than present realities isn't it? Something I have said on many threads before actually.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Meanwhile, over at the abortion clinic.. One staff member reported,”Girls” being distressed at the door to theatre and persuasion taking place with pressure on them to proceed.

And YET AGAIN you post something that in no way indicts abortion or is relevant to the morality of abortion........ but to medical ethics.

Just like when you complained about the way fetal matter is disposed of, you repeat the same error here.

If ANYONE is being pressured into ANY elective procedure then that is a bad thing to be addressed. Nothing to do with abortion per se. Everything to do with sound, and moral, medical practice.

You are so devoid of ANY arguments against abortion that consistently the best, and ONLY thing you are ever able to do is indict the actions people engage in (or fail to engage in) while providing them.

Which makes as much sense (that is, in case the point goes over your head, no sense at all) as me saying "Clothing is a bad and immoral thing....... because look over here there are people using forced child labor to manufacture some!"

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We do not know. Like looking at red and orange on a rainbow, we can identify red when we see it and orange when we see it, but we can not identify the transition point between the two.

I do not know when sentience begins, but that does not stop me looking at a rock and being as certain as "certain" gets that it is not sentience, or looking at you and being equally certain you are sentient.

Not being able to say "THIS is where sentience begins" should not preclude us in any way from saying "Look we know, if we can be said to know anything in this world, that sentience is not HERE......... so we can in good conscience offer an abortion service at that point".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

'a parasite', 'a clump of cells', 'an embryo' or any of the rest of that reductive nonsense.

How is calling something what it ACTUALLY is "reductive nonsense"?

Or does "reductive" now mean "Not being allowed assign it attributes that it does not actually have" or something?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's coming from someone who has argued for years for abortion without term limits to be legislated for because I believe that if a woman is determined enough, she will attempt to have an abortion regardless of what the law says.

If a murderer or rapist was determined enough they will engage in murder or rape too. I do not think that is an argument for legislating to allow them to do it.

What does "abortion without term limits" even mean in practice? You are rarely clear on that. If a woman two weeks before her due date wants an "abortion" then exactly what options do you think should be available to her, and with what effects on the baby? Because a lot of people when they read "abortion without term limits" might assume you mean it is ok to allow that baby to be simply killed, when they MIGHT not be what you mean at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe it's best that she be allowed do so safely rather than put two lives at risk. I never understood people who say "We have to trust women" and then follow that up with "up to 12 weeks", or whatever theyre comfortable with for themselves.

Which might be interesting if they were mediating their position purely on what is "comfortable". But having talked to such people, and being one myself, that is not the point of mediation.

The actual reality of my position, and many of theirs, is identifying what it actually is we hold moral and ethical concern for, and then simply realizing that certain levels of fetal development give us an entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the pre-requisites identified.

My position is not one of comfort but one of being a slave to sentience. I am compelled to hold moral and ethical concern to any entity with the faculty of sentience. I hold ZERO moral and ethical concern for any entity that lacks it. At stages like "12 weeks" therefore the fetus.... morally and philosophically and ethically....... is the equivalent of a rock to me. There simply is no basis I can discern for affording it moral or ethical concern, or preventing any woman from having it's development and "life" terminated.

I can not in any good conscience say that about a new born, or a child who is indistinguishable from a new born in every way other than which physical location at either end of the birth canal it just happens to be in.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's probably because I don't consider myself either "pro-life" or "pro-choice", but rather I recognise that what we should be arguing about here is not abortion itself, but the repeal of the 8th amendment

And I genuinely do not think we can coherently do either without the other. Discussing changing laws, how to change them, how to word them, and why........ is not a conversation we can usefully or coherently have without also debating our goals and agendas in doing so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and part of that discussion is recognising that the right to life of the unborn is one that has legal standing in and of itself, whether the 8th amendment exists or not.

And part of that discussion is debating whether that should be so, whether than should also be changed, and whether we should have a more coherent, applicable, relevant, modern and useful definition of "life" in terms of rights, morality and ethics rather than the all too oft bandied about biological definition of "life" that anti-choice campaigners bring to the table.

I do think rights, and the right to life, extend back before birth. That is not the debate for me. HOW FAR back, and why is the point of relevance. I have met few pro-choice campaigners who think the unborn as an umbrella term do not, or should not, have a right to life. Especially given it is you, not they, who generally espouse a right to an abortion without any term limits.

As I once said I can count the number of people, you included, who I have personally met or talked with who think there should be no term limits on abortion on one hand......... and still have fingers left over to enjoy a kit kat.

But as I also said, what "abortion without term limits" actually FUNCTIONALLY entails and means, is not often clear from the speaker so I can but invite further clarification on it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I argued that human life at any stage of human life, has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, even in death.

You have asserted it, but I am not sure I have ever seen you argue it. On what basis would you argue that a zygote a few days after conception is deserving of any "dignity" "respects" or "rights"?

And do we treat people with dignity and respect "even in death" really? Or is our treatment of the empty vessel that is their corpse a move to treat the bereaved and the still living with dignity and respect?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This was before the 'clump of cells' rhetoric became a popular refrain among a certain minority who were less interested in women's welfare, and more interested in promoting their own political agenda.

That would just be a move to dismiss peoples actual beliefs as mere agendas in the first place. I personally, for example, am in no way emotionally invested in being pro-choice or have any "agenda" that relies on it. I neither require an abortion directly or vicariously, nor do I know anyone who has.

My sole agenda in my positions is maximizing the well being of sentient entities. The pregnant woman is such an entity. A 12 week old fetus is not. Why the latter should be afforded any moral or ethical concern AT ALL, let alone relative to, or at the expense of, that woman's....... is entirely opaque to me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their efforts to argue for broadening our abortion laws in this country hinged on the premise that the unborn was of no value

My position is predicated on entirely non-sentient entities having no MORAL value. The word "unborn" is too general as it applies to the ENTIRE process and is contrived to say more than it actually does about the position of people like me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

that it could easily be discarded and everyone could carry on about their lives as easily as though they just had their appendix removed. An abortion would simply be considered a minor inconvenience, an abstract concept that would appear to have no consequences for anyone involved.

Only in so far as MOST invasive medical procedures have consequences, risks, and emotional impact. That is not "NO" consequences. There of course will be some. But "no consequences relative to other invasive elective medical procedures" would be more accurate and less simplistic. If we are going to distill peoples positions down into sound bites, lets not contrive to lose TOO Much of the depth and nuance of their position while doing so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if society were ever to reach a point where we have no respect for human lives that are an inconvenience to us, then there is no impetus upon anyone to draw a line.

Thankfully the position of people like me ELEVATE the value and respect of human life, not reduce it. And the first step in doing so is to differentiate between what we actually mean by different uses of the word "life" in different contexts. Because "life" purely in terms of biology and "life" in terms of a sentient and real human "person" are massively different things.

And it pays to be clear how AND why we should value each differently. Especially in a society that could be on the moral cusp of artificially creating sentience in a way that will also strongly call into question the fundamentals of how and why we afford moral and ethical concern to ANY entity.

I would fear the scare mongering of talking about a horrific potential future society misses the nuance and basis for most of the arguments people like myself make on this topic.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people will just keep pushing their own agenda with no regard for how it may affect other people in society.

And some people push it BECAUSE of how it affects other people in society.

Christy42

valoren wrote: »

That's the problem with the debate. Definitions.

What is the definiton of an abortion that is absolutely necessary?

A health risk to the mother and/or the baby I would imagine.

You would need agreement on that first. I mean someone here argued that the 8th allows for abortion in the case of rape/incest which I simply can't see. That person wanted the 8th kept on this basis but to my mind at a minimum it would need to be cleared up for this. Indeed I initially read when avsolutely required as a threat to the mother's life which is a much stricter requirement than health risk (and ends up requiring people to wait around for a health risk to become a life risk).

Health risk would also need to be defined. I could argue simply being pregnant is a health risk.

Zubeneschamali

valoren wrote: »

What is the definiton of an abortion that is absolutely necessary?

A health risk to the mother and/or the baby I would imagine.

This is all entirely beside the point - You are arguing about what comes later, in legislation. We have an infinite number of years to debate that, but it cannot be done until after we repeal the 8th.

laserlad2010

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is all entirely beside the point - You are arguing about what comes later, in legislation. We have an infinite number of years to debate that, but it cannot be done until after we repeal the 8th.

Why not?