The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

You support giving other women a choice, but not yourself?

You’ve missed the point. My choice would be to go forward with a pregnancy. I can’t see myself getting an abortion at any point (although that could change). So I would be pro life in my own circumstances.
However I support everyone’s right to choose, so I am pro choice.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

my position doesn't dictate anything of the sort. i can see how one may try to think it does, given they are looking for any old thing to try and discredit the pro-life argument, something they are unable to do.

Your arguement has been discredited repeatedly. You just put your fingers in your ears and pretend it hasn't

thee glitz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You’ve missed the point. My choice would be to go forward with a pregnancy. I can’t see myself getting an abortion at any point (although that could change). So I would be pro life in my own circumstances.
However I support everyone’s right to choose, so I am pro choice.

That's called being pro-choice.

Annasopra

Da Boss wrote: »

News flash- it is possible to be pro life and not catholic!! I happen to be both but not every pro life poster here is Catholic, it’s actually very possible for a human using their own logic to come to conclusion their pro life

Of course. It is also perfectly possible to be Catholic and Pro Choice.

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

That's called being pro-choice.

Please don’t assume to tell me what my own opinion is. It’s the height of arrogance.

Edward M

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course. It is also perfectly possible to be Catholic and Pro Choice.

Yup, you can live your own life to the letter of the law and be a good catholic despite what others do without casting judgement, but in a case of where you have to vote on a decision, I don't know how that would go with your position and beliefs.
That aside, it is of course possible to be both pro choice and anti abortion I would say in your own mind. I'm sure other countries where abortion is legal have just as good of catholics as countries that don't have abortion.
I suppose in religious terms on the anti choice side, calling abortion a sin or murder is inevitable, but at the same time that's judgement, judgement is also classed as a sin.
Hence the saying judge not lest you be judged yourself.

thee glitz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Please don’t assume to tell me what my own opinion is. It’s the height of arrogance.

I wouldn't dream of it, just saying what it's called.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

Your arguement has been discredited repeatedly. You just put your fingers in your ears and pretend it hasn't

it hasn't been discredited at all, in fact it has been validated.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Please don’t assume to tell me what my own opinion is. It’s the height of arrogance.

how is he telling you what your opinion is? you have said yourself you are pro-choice.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz

Not sure if relating to self or unsupported reply.

_Dara_

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You’ve missed the point. My choice would be to go forward with a pregnancy. I can’t see myself getting an abortion at any point (although that could change). So I would be pro life in my own circumstances.
However I support everyone’s right to choose, so I am pro choice.

I'm the same as you and to me that all comes under the pro-choice banner. My choice would be to have the baby. I class myself as pro-choice completely. To say you're pro-life for yourself suggests that the choice part of pro-choice means only one thing - abortion. Whereas the choice is between choosing to have the baby and choosing to not.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

it hasn't been discredited at all, in fact it has been validated.

.

When your are shown how, legally and medically what you claim is incorrect how is that validation? Are you sure you understand what validation means?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.

end of the road wrote: »

however in the case of the unborn where sentients is likely

end of the road wrote: »

the fact that it is a life which will become sentient[(QUOTE]

Potential to be sentient just means it is not sentient now. So it is perfectly valid until such time as you establish, by anything other than outright assertion, why potential sentience should be considered important at all. Let alone relatively important to the well being, free choice, rights and ethics of an actually sentient agent.

None of this have you yet done or, while ignoring many of my replies to you while "thanking" all the posts of the one user on the thread who believes in abortion WITHOUT term limits, have I even seen you yet attempt.

You seem to assume that the potential for something to be sentient automatically places on us an onus to realize it. This is a wanton and massive assertion for which you have willfully contrived to offer NO sustaining argumentation.

I did offer a thought experiment on this on another thread elsewhere on this forum. Imagine I were to build a fully functional General Artificial Intelligence tomorrow. It would be every bit as sentient, maybe even massively more so, than you or I when I turn it on. The ONLY thing stopping it realizing it's potential is that I have not yet flicked the "On" switch.

What, in your vacuous view of the onus potential puts on us, compels me morally to flick that switch rather than..... say.... dismantle the entire machine and build toasters out of the parts? I genuinely think you do not know an answer to that because A) you have been asserting your position without considering such things and I suspect there isn't even an answer for it for you to find as NOTHING compels us morally to flick that switch.

end of the road wrote: »

it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand.

I do not hold to many axioms in my life, but "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few I hold dear. And I apply it equally to people AND concepts.

For this reason your sentence here parses as nonsense to me. Until such time as you can construct an argument showing abortion of a 0-16 week fetus is NOT ethical or is immoral...... which you simply have failed to do at every turn in this thread....... then I consider it "innocent until proven guilty".

There is no onus on me to show it ethical, the onus would be on you to show it is not. For my position it is enough that it even be ethically neutral.

end of the road wrote: »

human life is human life. that is indisputable fact.

What is also a fact, which is an inconvenience for you clearly, is that "human life" is not just one term meaning one thing. It means a completely different thing in taxonomy than it does in, say, philosophy.

The trope of the anti choice commentator appears to be to pretend this fact is not so. And that a valid use of "human life" in one context automatically validates it's use in all other contexts. It doesn't. Bully for you.

In terms of taxonomy and biology the parent, the zygote, the fetus, the baby, all of it is "human life". In terms of philosophy and "rights" and morality and ethics however we operate on more attributes that pure taxonomy. And the attributes we operate on are.... again bully for you....... precisely the ones a fetus from 0-16 weeks clearly and wholly lacks.

end of the road wrote: »

the problem here is that this is all irrelevant as the poster is talking about human life (mind you he could have made that clear)

I know he was, do keep up. The point I am making is that the fact he is talking about human life rather than just "life" begs the question. The question being what aspect of human life is it that validates his assertions in a way no other life on this planet does.

The point being that when someone actually sits down to identify the attributes that constitute that difference..... they happen to be EXACTLY The attributes the fetus being aborted simply lacks. Inconvenient for people with your agenda, but facts be facts.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

News flash- it is possible to be pro life and not catholic!! I happen to be both but not every pro life poster here is Catholic, it’s actually very possible for a human using their own logic to come to conclusion their pro life

Then I wonder what the source is, Catholicism of otherwise, of the complete inability to adumbrate the logic that led to that conclusion. Because I have sat with many people who are pro life in an attempt to have them explain their views to me and they simply can not do it. We just get wanton assertions that hold no water when unpacked.

I simply have not been shown a logical argument as to why the termination of a 0-16 week old fetus is morally or ethically problematic. Least of all by you.

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you are dictating that women must stay pregnant against their wishes or needs.

the law dictates a lot of things in relation to causing harm or killing.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer for any healthcare at all?

because it's necessary. killing the unborn bar extreme circumstances is unnecessary however.

Wow, if only those laws were up for some kind of debate or test of public opinion in the coming months due to it not being murder in early term...

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Of course you can be both. I am pro life for myself, in my own circumstances, and for my own life.
I am pro choice, in that I support giving other women the option to choose in their own circumstances.
Therefore I am both pro life and pro choice. It’s the most logical and sensible approach, imo.

Your in no way pro life, ur pro life in a planned pregnancy ( which I’d imagine every person on this planet is) however ur pro abortion for others and pro abortion for you when it suits u says! There’s not an ounce of pro life in you

rainbow kirby

Da Boss wrote: »

ur pro life in a planned pregnancy ( which I’d imagine every person on this planet is)

Two words - hyperemesis gravidarium.

I know of someone who considered suicide and termination in an IVF pregnancy (so the most wanted of wanted and planned pregnancies) as a result of this.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

Your in no way pro life, ur pro life in a planned pregnancy ( which I’d imagine every person on this planet is) however ur pro abortion for others and pro abortion for you when it suits u says! There’s not an ounce of pro life in you

Ok, this is something that I have never delved into on these threads because it isn't relevant, and could be perceived as point scoring, but seeing as your response was so aggressive, I will tell you something.
I have had a crisis, unplanned pregnancy. At quite a young age. I progressed with the pregnancy. I kept the baby. I ended up having a stillbirth, but the point remains.
So don't for a minute tell me I'm pro abortion. I'm not.
I still support having a choice for others. Its not a choice I would make for myself but who knows what the future holds.
It is possible to be both. I am both.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As the majority of men and women of non child bearing age do.

Billy86

If Da Boss feels so strongly against abortions under any circumstance because children are just an 'inconvenience' while aborting a pregnancy is one of the world's great evils to them, why don't they just take in the children of all the unwanted pregnancies in Ireland?

If they're as pious as they like to think of themselves, then it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice at all to them to take these children in on an ongoing basis.

SusieBlue

Billy86 wrote: »

If Da Boss feels so strongly against abortions under any circumstance because children are just an 'inconvenience' while aborting a pregnancy is one of the world's great evils to them, why don't they just take in the children of all the unwanted pregnancies in Ireland?

If they're as pious as they like to think of themselves, then it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice at all to them to take these children in on an ongoing basis.

That's an excellent observation. Shouldn't be a bother to him seeing as he's so passionate about saving the unborn.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/cabinet-faces-deep-divisions-as-abortion-tops-meeting-agenda-821986.html

Mmm. The divisions may be deep but I'm dubious as to their breadth. I mean there are 'deep divisions' on abortion in SF - between Peadar Toibin and the rest of the parliamentary party.:P A lot hinges on Coveney IMO. If he comes out against the committee's recommendations, a sizeable chunk of the party could follow his lead (but nowhere near enough to vote down the legislation).

Edward M

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/cabinet-faces-deep-divisions-as-abortion-tops-meeting-agenda-821986.html

Mmm. The divisions may be deep but I'm dubious as to their breadth. I mean there are 'deep divisions' on abortion in SF - between Peadar Toibin and the rest of the parliamentary party.:P A lot hinges on Coveney IMO. If he comes out against the committee's recommendations, a sizeable chunk of the party could follow his lead (but nowhere near enough to vote down the legislation).

It needs to go to the polls as soon as possible now. FF already talking of cutting off the confidence and supply arrangement over the health and housing issues, if that happens anytime soon then this issue will be fobbed off again until another govt considers it.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in your opinion they have been discredited and proven wrong. however they haven't been in reality.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i'm not and never have engaged in such.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

because i'm entitled to my opinion and i simply express my opinion, which is not against the rules last time i checked.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

by refusing to provide abortion in ireland, we make people really think about whether they actually want that abortion. if they really want it, they will go to england to have it. the reason i believe we do have some obligation to provide after care is that not providing it would go beyond simply making the carying out of an abortion outside extreme circumstances a bit difficult.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

by refusing to provide abortion in ireland, we make people really think about whether they actually want that abortion. if they really want it, they will go to england to have it. the reason i believe we do have some obligation to provide after care is that not providing it would go beyond simply making the carying out of an abortion outside extreme circumstances a bit difficult.

This just shows, and proves, for a fact, that you don't trust women. Do you not think women "really think" about whether they "really want" an abortion, before the fact?
Or do they just treat it as something similar to buying a pint of milk on the way home from work?

Do you not believe, and trust, women to give due consideration to something that will undoubtedly effect the course of the rest of their lives, something that will be emotionally and physically draining?

So do you trust women or not? If you do, then you must believe they will "really think about it", whether they get one in Ireland or abroad. If not, then its clear you have an underlying motive in your lack of support for repealing the 8th.