Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

I won't speculate on your motivation for doing so, but will point out that your continued use of the term 'anti-choice' is taking liberties. It's akin to calling Repealers 'pro-abortion', which many apparently disagree with.

Thank you for raising your concern with such decorum. The only 2 other people out of 1000s who have likely heard me use it...... who have raised similar concern were.... less than polite while doing so shall I say. But 3 people out of 1000s is not a bad score in a world where people appear to offend easier day by day.

I can explain my motivation for doing so if it helps, and why it is not really comparable to the "pro abortion" label.

The first is merely personally subjective. I prefer when labeling two camps to have words that actually show their opposites. Like Theist and Atheist for example. Anti Choice (anti choice on abortion) is the opposite of being pro choice (pro choice on abortion). The labels are, if nothing else, ACCURATE and fairly representative of their views.

The other is that I prefer to AVOID labels that suggest the OPPOSING side have attributes they do not, or lack attributes they actually have. The term "pro life" is suggestive that the other side is somehow "anti" life, when nothing could be further from the truth. So it is not a label I can with any good conscience use. For similar reasons I tend to try and use the word "homosexual" much more than I use the term "gay"...... because I do not like the implied suggestion that people who are NOT "gay" are somehow dour and depressed.

Another is that "anti choice" is a lot less emotive and insulting that SOME of the other labels I have heard trotted out. I gravitate towards labels that are not contrived to be insulting or misrepresentation. The label "pro abortion" for example is contrived to be insulting, misleading, and it ALSO does one of the worst things I think we can do with labels which is to ignore or erode the common ground the two opposing camps have.

Because one thing I think is true about BOTH camps is that ideally BOTH camps would prefer little or no abortions to be happening. And common ground in general is important, but even more so on emotive and divisive issues like this. We NEED the common ground and we NEED to point at it any time we can.

You might not LIKE the term I use, and that is your perogative, but I certainly can not be accused of being insulting, misrepresenting, emotive, damaging, or making snide implications in the terms I use. Which can not alas be said for many of the labels I have seen BOTH camps employing.

So agree with the result or not, I genuinely mean well in my selection of terms and no small quantity of thought went into my selections.

thee glitz wrote: »

Me - the cells that comprise me are human. Always have been. You too.

I absolutely entirely agree. But that agreement is couched in us talking the talk of biology.

But biology is not the only context in which we use the word "Human" and when we have one word describing 2 or more things.... it pays to be VERY pedantically explicit, especially in emotive and important topics, which one is in play.

When it comes to abortion I am not using "human" in purely biological terms. But in "personhood" terms. What it means, beyond biology and more in the realms of philosophy, ethics and morality to BE "human" and how such meanings of "human" influence how, why or even IF we afford an entity moral or ethical concern.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are numerous moral arguments against early term abortion, and there are numerous perspectives which inform those arguments regarding the morality of early term abortion.

Perspectives inform opinions, but without good arguments supporting the moral argument, there is no reason why these perspectives should be legislated for and imposed upon others.

There are moral arguments against early term abortion, but I have never heard anything even approaching a convincing moral argument that a non sentient entity that has never existed, has no thoughts, identity, feelings or relationships with anyone, gets moral equivilence with a fully developed person who has hopes, dreams, relationships, dependents, aspirations and bodily integrity that would all be severely impacted by the continuance of an unwanted pregnancy.

Religious beliefs are only one perspective. Humanitarian beliefs are another, political beliefs are another, scientific beliefs are another, tradition and cultural values are another... and there are many, many more perspectives which inform peoples perspectives about the morality of early term abortion.

none of those matter if they cannot contribute to a convincing argument that explains why a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will at a point where the foetus/zygote is at an early stage in the pregnancy.

There are arguments for later on in the pregnancy when a woman would have had opportunities to terminate earlier but decided not to for one reason or another, and the foetus might be viable outside of the uterus so delivering the baby might be preferable to abortion, but at an early stage of the pregnancy the rights should be hugely weighted on the side of the woman and not the 'potential' person who has yet to develop.

There's not much point in saying that your suggestion is the most pragmatic and sensible policy when of course the only reason it's only the most pragmatic and sensible policy, is because you set the criteria for what qualifies as the most pragmatic and sensible policy! Other people will disagree with you on the most pragmatic and sensible policy because they may have different criteria for what's pragmatic and sensible, and that's even if they agree with you that pragmatic and sensible are the only criteria under which any legislation should be drafted.

It's clearly more pragmatic to have abortions at the earliest stage when the woman has thought through the matter and decided she doesn't want to have a baby. It's more pragmatic for the woman, it's a far less dangerous and invasive procedure, it's more pragmatic for the foetus/zygote in that in the first half of the pregnancy there is no possibiity of causing any pain or suffering because the foetus/zygote doesn't have the consciousness to know it's alive or to experience any pain or suffering.

We already allow the morning after pill to 'kill' fertilized zygote by preventing it from implanting in the womb. There is no real moral difference between a fertilized zygote and an embryo and a blastocyst and a foetus at 16 weeks. They're all non sentient human life that have the 'potential' to become persons.

There is very little moral difference between unfertilized gametes and a zygote either, because they're both 'potential' persons, it's just a numbers game about how likely that potential is to be actualised. With gametes, it's very low probability, with zygotes, it's somewhat low, embryos more likely to carry and with mid term pregancies much more likely than not (on average) but basing your ethical argument on the statistics how likely it is that a non person will become a person becomes very silly very quickly.

It makes much more sense to have a rational legal framework relating to the personhood of the foetus, and if we decide what characteristics make a person a person, we can decide when abortion becomes morally unacceptable.

You have no way of knowing that if abortion legislation were broadened in Ireland, that the vast majority of abortions would happen in the early term of the pregnancy.

Don't be silly,
It's not a leap into the unknown, Abortion is available in many countries. Where it is safe and legal and easy to access, most abortions happen early. Where there are restrictions, they happen later.

Sensible definitions of personhood don't just belong in the pub at all as they are the basis upon which we confer human rights,

I never said we shouldn't discuss personhood. I said we should leave the bollox about 'potential' persons in the pub where it belongs. Where a person exists give them rights. Where a potential person exists, there is nobody to give rights to. wait and if the person becomes actually a person, then the rights are given.

by both domestic and international law. That's where the term "the unborn" in the 8th amendment comes from, and why when drafting the POLDA 2013, legislators had to agree that the unborn is conferred with the right to life (which all people have) at implantation, to get around religious determinations that human life begins at conception. This definition also allowed for contraceptives to be made legally available to women previous to the POLDPA.

They were pandering to the nonsense religious argument that we should give rights to potential persons. We should leave that out of the argument and get a rational debate about actual people with actual rights.

Legislation regarding abortion isn't just about the rights of the individual who is pregnant, it isn't just about the right to life of the unborn, it isn't just about father's rights. It is about recognising and balancing the legal rights of everyone in Irish society, including those who have not yet been born, because the Constitution is a guiding document which works within a legal framework to determine the type of society that is both fair and equitable to every member of that society both now, and in the future going forward. It determines what sort of a society we all want to live in, as opposed to determining the sort of society that very few of us would want to live in. I for one don't want to live in a society which disregards human life as 'just a bunch of cells' or 'a parasite', or rather than address social inequalities seeks to take a shortcut and disregard the welfare of it's citizens because now they can have an abortion so Government is under no pressure to address issues like poverty and social inequality.

That last bit is just a load of nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that if we had abortion that the government wouldn't have to address poverty or social inequality?

There is an argument that we would have less poverty and less social inequality if we solved one of the most persistent poverty traps, unwanted pregnancy in families that can't afford to raise them... but nobody is arguing that governments should have any role in telling people that they should have abortions. This debate is about the government telling women that no matter how much they don't want to have a baby, that they have to have one anyway.

Samaris

There is a major issue with restrictions meaning that abortions (when the hoops have been properly jumped) happen later, just because of those hoops and the difficulty of securing an abortion. The clock starts ticking, and there's an element of "put all the stops in the way - how dare you have a late abortion!" That really is a no-win situation and it's worse when there's also a push against contraception and safe sex education. That problem is worse in places like the US these days though. That ends up basically enforcing that when abortions happen (bar the pill, and the time limit on that is very short), they -will- happen later than is good for anyone, including the woman herself. It is a medical procedure, it is rough on the body, and most people will not choose to have one for the hell of it. The later it happens, the harder it is on the body.

Ireland needs to take responsibility for its own issues. The travel clause is ..messy, counter-productive, unethical whether one is pro or anti and is nothing but shoving the problem off on another country. As a process, it is not fit for purpose and it's not really fair on anyone. England shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the abortion needs for two countries. An Irish woman should not have to pay way over the odds to include travel, possibly an overnight stay, a medical procedure in another country because of this rather multiple-personality approach to the whole thing.

Repeal the Eighth and let's have a proper discussion about where we can agree on limits. As it is, sure, we can have a discussion, but it means nothing because nothing can be done with the Eighth in place. There is a rather smug element to "nothing stopping us from talking now!" from those who are safely behind the amendment who know that even if someone comes up with a difficult point to refute, they are essentially impotent.

Hesthea

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

That's illogical. It's an out of date way of thinking, I didn't say it non existent.

My apologies. I wrongly assumed that by saying outdated you meant that it was obsolete hence it does not happen in today's day.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I'd say a single father has the exact same problems as a single mother in this regard. It's difficult for me to believe you are discriminated against, due to my experiences. They are just a pair of gossiping árseholes. Average joe might be pissed off because of the benefits a single parent might get.

I have 2 friends who are single mothers. One has never worked, has 4 kids, and has everything paid for. Recently got a lovely 4 bed house fully kitted out. I think she may have had to buy a TV, from her social welfare benefits. Not exactly a very inspiring life to live, according to many, but you can see how some work their asses off can be pissed off with this lifestyle choice.

I am a full time working lone parent. I earn the minimum wage. Due to being a lone parent and no one to depend on i have a very strict schedule. The place i am working at were the only ones that offered to give me a schedule in which i could work while also raising my child. The roster is made every week which helps a lot.
With the absurd rent increase i am not able to afford to get a new place for me and my child (the landlord decided to sell the property and i have less than 3 months to leave the place). The problems i had 3 years ago in trying to find a place for us are still the same now. No single mothers and no rent allowance (had to google for the last one). I applied to a city council house and got approved for HAP (I got happy but not for long since HAP = stigma) and all of this is happening even though i have great references, i work full time and pay my bills.

I make phone calls, i send emails and talk to agents/ landlords to no avail. As soon as i say i'm a full time working lone parent with HAP (and references) i never hear from them again. Some even refuse flat out in my face and accuse me of making them wasting their time.

Even though everyone tells me its illegal and they can't do that. They do. Some only got a smarter way to refuse you now.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

It's not, stop clutching at straws. You are the one making it a man v woman thing. It's as if people can't be happy if there's no "us v them" air to it.

Yea i'd say that some people may think that some of the things you mentioned are true. But that says more about the person judging you, and I really wouldn't get worked up about what they have to say. However, your last paragraph is wrong.

It is not me making it a man v woman thing. It is the society we live in.

My last paragraph was written based on my own experiences. If it is wrong i guess i am unlucky enough to be stumbling in all the people who show me how bad being a single mother is although i do not regret being one.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

This is nonsense.
"Why does any of you...", huh? You men or you pro lifers? Well the right to protect life should not be reserved exclusively to females. There should be input from all sides. Like in my previous comments, I don't agree with abortion under certain circumstances. I don't believe that one person should decide that the life within them should be terminated. Why should the life of one be decided by another?
What? This doesn't make any sense, single mother (parents even) are not the majority. So saying that a father who helps raise a child, is the minority, is incredibly wrong. Or do you mean those that do not wish to have an abortion? If that's the case, do you have any material to back up your statement?

Does that mean that society doesn't blame the woman when a relationship fails? When a man abandons the mother and child for "greener pastures" or because they feel like they aren't living the life they wanted to?

This is something that happens to both sides but mainly to women reason why you said:

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

I think that it's unusual to see single fathers. From this website: https://onefamily.ie/policy-campaigns/facts-figures/ only 13.5% of single parent families are headed by the father. I guess it's the norm to see single mothers and unusual for the mother to abandon father and child.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

Some of your points could be valid, but being abandoned by father or family shouldn't be a reason to terminate a pregnancy, nor should losing a job. There's a lot of support, both financially and mentally for single parents. In some cases, the support is very appealing.

i'm afraid i don't know any of those supports you mention or i would probably be looking into it.

Royce Numerous Goose-step wrote: »

There's definitely some irrational fears like over the counter abortions without restrictions. As discussed with nozzferrahhtoo, this would be a very small minority wishing to do this. Irresponsible people who probably shouldn't be parents. However, giving people the decision to terminate a pregnancy, no matter the reason, is something I don't agree with.

There is more than one reason to end a pregnancy. What i might consider as a good reason to end it (even if i do not want to do it), you might be against it. It varies from person to person.

What people must be wary of is, even if a women makes an abortion it is something she will always remember and think of: when she see kids on the street, or when she looks at her own children. She will still imagine and create all sorts of situations of "what if " the child had been born. But most of you think that its something that women do just because they feel like it and thats the end of it. Those who think that way couldn't be more wrong... although there will always be those cases in which some might abort as if it were like going to the shop to buy a new set of clothes.

What we all must agree in is that all who are in favor to repeal the 8th is because they want to own their own body. They want to have the power to decide. They want that freedom but like everything in life, with that freedom comes responsibility and they all know that.

I for example, am in favor of repeal the 8th but i do not agree with a pregnancy termination if its too advanced like above 12 or 16 weeks. But then again what do i know to determine if that is considered acceptable?

i am also in favor of sex education being learned in every single school. That is half way to prevent pregnancy at such young age.

.........

Hesthea wrote: »

Can you explain while someone who has medical issues that might endanger their life if the pregnancy goes forward shouldn't? Is her life less important than the other that is still in the making?

We already have medical abortion in Ireland when the life of the mother is at risk.

Hesthea wrote: »

Can you explain how someone who has no financial means to support herself shouldn't? Should they starve to death? Live on the streets? Should her sell her body to be able to feed the baby that she would have?

Have you ever heard of social welfare ? Hundreds of thousands of single mothers managed and still manage to raise their children on it until such time as their circumstances improve.

Hesthea wrote: »

Should a person with psychological issues see the pregnancy through and then kill herself or the baby or both because she was obligated to go through it and can't cope with it?

Since when was abortion a cure for mental illness ? And since when should a person who threatens to kill others including themselves be facilitated to do so ?

jameorahiely

thee glitz wrote: »

I won't speculate on your motivation for doing so, but will point out that your continued use of the term 'anti-choice' is taking liberties. It's akin to calling Repealers 'pro-abortion', which many apparently disagree with.



Me - the cells that comprise me are human. Always have been. You too. They didn't transform from say being potentially dog cells to being definitely human. Unless magic perhaps. When a lady tells me she's pregnant, I don't instantly wish her that I hope it's not a horse she's carrying.

Pro repeal and anti repeal are terms which should be used, but maybe they're not loaded enough

nozzferrahhtoo

Useful terms when you are just talking about the repeal. Not really that useful if you are talking about abortion in general however. Context is everything.

But agreed, they are nice unloaded terms. As are mine. And they are not mutually exclusive in any way.

Akrasia

......... wrote: »

Since when was abortion a cure for mental illness ? And since when should a person who threatens to kill others including themselves be facilitated to do so ?

Ever since the morning after pill was legalised in Ireland. Morning after pills terminate pregnancies of fertilized zygotes. What's the moral difference between a zygote and a foetus at 16 weeks?
If you believe that abortion is murder, then so is the morning after pill.

nice_guy80

Women should be free to make the choice.
As should medical professionals

the state shouldn't be dictating

Akrasia

thee glitz wrote: »

I won't speculate on your motivation for doing so, but will point out that your continued use of the term 'anti-choice' is taking liberties. It's akin to calling Repealers 'pro-abortion', which many apparently disagree with.

The difference is that one is descriptive of reality, while the other isn't

People who are against abortion are against the allowing women to choose an abortion. People who are pro-choice are not necessarily in favour of abortion, but are in favour of allowing the woman to make her own choice.

It's an important difference. Anti abortion activists impose their own religious/moral world view on others as if they somehow have the ultimate authority and they do not recognise that they might be wrong.
Pro-choice means that you recognise that this is a complex issue and despite your own personal view on the matter, you realise that every case is different and the person most qualified to decide whether she should carry a pregnancy is the woman who is pregnant.

There are lots of pro choice people who would never choose an abortion themselves. But they are pro-choice because they recognise that their own personal values should not be universalised and imposed on others.

If you're anti choice, then you are basically saying that you don't care about other people's life circumstances, or the individual circumstances of their pregnancy, you know better than them, and you think it's more important that your personal religious or moral view on when a soul enters a human body should be forced on everyone.

Me - the cells that comprise me are human.

Nope, there are billions of cells in your body that are non human. There are 10 times more bacterial cells in your body than there are human cells
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones/

And inside every human cell, there are mitochondria, which are genetically different to you and are non human, but absolutely essential for our survival.

Without your microbial biome, you would not survive, you would not be able to digest food or create enzymes necessary for building your human cells.

Always have been. You too. They didn't transform from say being potentially dog cells to being definitely human. Unless magic perhaps. When a lady tells me she's pregnant, I don't instantly wish her that I hope it's not a horse she's carrying.

Evolution says different, humans evolved from single celled organisms, all animals and plants are genetically related. Just because something has human cells does not make it inheretly valuable. What we value is human personhood and that is not linked to our cells, it emerges from our brain and nervous system and consciousness.

When humans get brain damaged we can keep them 'alive' for years, but most people realise that the person is gone even if the human cells are still alive.

There is a woman (Henrietta Lacks) who died half a century ago whose cells are still alive, being cultured and used for cancer research. That research has been invaluable and saved millions of lives, is it immoral to use her cells for research because they're 'human cells' despite the fact that they have no other properties of being a human person?

Valerie2015

I used to be pro choice without question and I know people who have had abortions at about 20 weeks. I also know a young man who was born at 23 weeks.
What's your definition of when the foetus stops being a bunch of cells and starts being a person?
And if viability continues to reduce in terms of number of weeks, would this influence your view?
In my fifties now and feeling quite differento how I felt in my teens.
Perspective.
And motherhood,
Has influenced me.

Akrasia

Valerie2015 wrote: »

I used to be pro choice without question and I know people who have had abortions at about 20 weeks. I also know a young man who was born at 23 weeks.
What's your definition of when the foetus stops being a bunch of cells and starts being a person?
And if viability continues to reduce in terms of number of weeks, would this influence your view?
In my fifties now and feeling quite differento how I felt in my teens.
Perspective.
And motherhood,
Has influenced me.

There are people alive now who wouldn't be alive if contraception was not banned in Ireland. It's not a good argument for banning contraception.

I think a reasonable cutoff point for abortion on demand is about 16 weeks. There is enough time for the woman to make an informed choice and the foetal development is still too early for there to be any question of even primitive consciousness to exist. The first evidence of anything approaching thoughts are at around 7 months when rapid eye movements are detected.

I think abortion on demand is reasonable in the first 4 months and afterwards it should be allowed where foetal abnormalities are detected or there are risks to the health of the mother

Wibbs

Akrasia wrote: »

There are people alive now who wouldn't be alive if contraception was not banned in Ireland. It's not a good argument for banning contraception.

Rubber Johnny stops sperm and egg meeting Versus viable foetus surgically removed at say 20 weeks Equals wild different scenarios.

Though I would broadly agree with you here:

I think a reasonable cutoff point for abortion on demand is about 16 weeks. There is enough time for the woman to make an informed choice and the foetal development is still too early for there to be any question of even primitive consciousness to exist. The first evidence of anything approaching thoughts are at around 7 months when rapid eye movements are detected.

I think abortion on demand is reasonable in the first 4 months and afterwards it should be allowed where foetal abnormalities are detected or there are risks to the health of the mother

Akrasia

Wibbs wrote: »

Rubber Johnny stops sperm and egg meeting Versus viable foetus surgically removed at say 20 weeks Equals wild different scenarios.

Yeah, they're not exactly the same, but there is a hindsight argument against abortion, by saying 'what if your mother had aborted you' or 'This person was about to be aborted but the mother had a last minute change of heart, and now look at this person who would never have been born..."

My point is that potential persons are not persons, I wouldn't have been born if my mother had aborted me, but I also wouldn't have been born if my mother had a headache that night, or if they had used contraception...

Potential persons shouldn't be given the same status as actual persons, and for me, the only point of genuine moral difficulty is the cut-off point for when personhood begins. When there is a person, that person has rights. When personhood begins has to be linked to brain activity because this is the best place for us to attribute personhood.

I think personhood is gained at a certain level of brain activity (which is up for scientific debate) and it is also lost at a point where brain damage is sufficient to end that brain activity beyond repair.

A human body alone does not make a person. If someone is in a persistent vegetative state, that person is dead, but the body is still alive, while on the other end of the scale, a persons body could be shutting down but as long as the brain still functions, nobody would question whether that person is still alive.

Terminating a pregnancy at an early stage does not harm an existing person, it only prevents a potential person from becoming an actual person, and in this way, it has the same end result as someone choosing contraception when she has sex.

It might seem nutty to compare contraception to abortion, but it's still official Catholic doctrine that contraception is a sin for the reason that 'spilling the seed' harms the 'potential life' that would exist if nature was allowed to take it's course.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thank you for raising your concern with such decorum. The only 2 other people out of 1000s who have likely heard me use it...... who have raised similar concern were.... less than polite while doing so shall I say. But 3 people out of 1000s is not a bad score in a world where people appear to offend easier day by day.

You are most welcome. Very sorry to hear you encountered discourtesies elsewhere. You needn't consider me someone who is easily offended.

I can explain my motivation for doing so if it helps, and why it is not really comparable to the "pro abortion" label.

The first is merely personally subjective. I prefer when labeling two camps to have words that actually show their opposites. Like Theist and Atheist for example.

I like this, when such a simplification is largely accurate with most people falling either side of a line.

Anti Choice (anti choice on abortion) is the opposite of being pro choice (pro choice on abortion). The labels are, if nothing else, ACCURATE and fairly representative of their views.

I get what you're saying here. Anti-choice on abortion is largely the opposite of Pro-choice on abortion, but the actual meaning in any situation depends on the starting point and how it's framed. It seems, possibly out of convenience, that you shorten these to pro-choice and anti-choice. Any decent economist, or most people, will tell you that choice is usually a good thing. It increases our possibilities, often enabling us to reach better outcomes. To label anyone who isn't for abortion rights in all circumstances, or not for abortion rights in circumstances where you are pro-abortion, as 'Anti-choice' is misleading, and attracts unnecessary connotations. We all know choice is a good thing - this anti-choice person must be crazy and/or have some god in their head. It may well be that 'anti-choicers' welcome choice is many other, more appropriate, situations. To label someone who is not for abortion rights in all circumstances as anti-choice seems rather disingenuous, and also one that would apply to most people here.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

To label anyone who isn't for abortion rights in all circumstances, or not for abortion rights in circumstances where you are pro-abortion, as 'Anti-choice' is misleading

Except no, it really isn't. It is EXACTLY what they are on the subject. How could describing people EXACTLY be misleading? That makes no sense.

And that is just specifically the term itself. But it becomes even more stark when one considers it relative to OTHER terms that have been in play. Such as "pro-life" which genuinely is misleading in that it makes suggestions about the "opposite" side as if they are somehow anti-life when nothing could be further from the truth.

So no I do not see my terms as misleading, and they are much less misleading and propaganda driven than others that are in play.