The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I am pointing out that the gender of a human being decided at the moment of conception is the plan, not the implementation of it. Quite important!

Who's plan is it that gender is determined from the moment of conception? It is this which is a nonsense.

What a straw man that is. I value human life every bit as much as you do, so you can pocket the distortions and ad hominem thanks. The difference is where we define "human life" as starting, and what it means. You are appealing to "Human life" in a way that is purely taxonomy. Which is not useful.

Not useful to your argument perhaps. What you appear to be saying is that you do indeed value human life, and that it's deceptive and dishonest for me to suggest otherwise, based on something being human, and alive, not necessarily qualifying it as human life. You've your own idea about that, and false analogies to back it up.

I however am appealing to the attributes that make humans "human". Their actual HUMANITY. Attributes that distinguish humanity from any other piece of life on this planet.

You are appealing to the aspects of human life which YOU value. There's a gap there between what can be distinguished as human life and what YOU (say we all do/should?) value. And this window is, presumably, then used as the basis for the justification of abortion on demand.

Except it is not irrelevant at all. Irrelevance does not appear in things that do not suit YOUR argument and agenda. You are trying to make a "someone" out of a "no one" by pointing to the fact that their sex is determined in DNA. And I am just pointing out to you that that is also true of EVERY gendered species on our entire planet. Which dilutes your approach to the nonsense it was to begin with.

You were talking about a cow there btw. That the basis of my argument is similarly observed in other species doesn't dilute it at all.

Come back with the goal posts there, I said "no one" not "nothing". Stop changing MY words into words more convenient to you. The Zygote is not a "nothing" it is a "no one". And while "nothings have no attributes" a "no one" can. Learn the difference.

Apologies, I haven't been down the rabbit hole of nothings and no-ones before. It does appear that they warrant the same concern.

No, it does not. No more than having an arm implies an identity. Or a hair color. Or eye color. Or a genetic disease. Identity is a subjective narrative. There is no narrative in biological sex. You are basically engaging in pathetic fallacy to manufacture identity out of nothing but narrative.

I don't believe in no-ones, will have to work on that. It's a bit strange to think of a living object as being humanly male or female.

As I said, that which gives human life value...

There is nothing inherently special about human life as you say, except the sentience and consciousness that gives us the very concepts of value, ethics, morality and all the other things we value like culture, art, literature, poetry, love, and hope.

It was part of a question when I said there was nothing inherently special about human life. You've shown that I was entirely correct to say that you don't see intrinsic value in it. You say that you value the attributes that arise from it, but don't care to protect the means by which they naturally develop.

Again only in terms of pure taxonomy. Which is a poor basis for the levels of philosophy you are failing to aspire to.

Making determinations on the values of individuals' lives is a dangerous road to go down. I've no inclination to partake in your clutch for straws.

captbarnacles

Which individuals would these be? are you saying a fertilised egg is an individual??

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though.
Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.

Ah - the just suck it up and get on with it argument.

Funny how it's not used to suggest that viagra should not be available on the State's bill. We have children and the elderly languishing in misery on hospital trolleys due to lack of funds (among other things in our disastrous so-called health service) while paying €4 million a month to help men get erections. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/irish-taxpayers-foot-4m-medical-card-bill-for-monthly-viagra-30885209.html

Many men can't get it up - why can't they just get on with not getting it on?

captbarnacles

I doubt anyone whoever describes pregnancy as an inconvenience has ever spoken to a pregnant woman.

Bannasidhe

captbarnacles wrote: »

I doubt anyone whoever describes pregnancy as an inconvenience has ever spoken to a pregnant woman.

They have certainly never been a pregnant woman!

Hannibal_Smith

Edward M wrote: »

Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though.
Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.

Just get on with it. Do you see how unequal that Is? How you don't want something to happen to your body and there is a solution, but you can't avail of it and so your only option is to continue as you are?. Can you see how control over your own body...your own body...has been taken out of your hands? Can you see how the life of the unborn becomes more important than the life carrying it?

Inconvenience it is not. Being able to make decisions for yourself and your body is what it is.

Just get on with it is a poor reason for not allowing that imo.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And what?

What I was trying to gauge was the relative importance afforded to ensuring that women don't die (or suffer unduly) vs promotion of abortion on demand.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As we have seen on this thread they are reduced to saying "no we weren't" and "no it's not",

And others are reduced to saying 'no - you're for the thing you just specifically said that you weren't'.

The real hypocrisy lies in using special circumstances as a means to furthering a liberal abortion agenda, while not particularly giving a fcuk about same. Pro abortion rights campaigners seemingly refuse to contemplate (even the possibility of) a situation where women's lives could be saved, unless it also allows abortion whyever.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Who's plan is it that gender is determined from the moment of conception? It is this which is a nonsense.

You really do struggle with the concept of analogy don't you? I am not saying there is a plan in the gender being determined, or that someone has such a plan. I was likening how gender is being set from the outset TO the "plan" in my blue print analogy.

thee glitz wrote: »

You've your own idea about that, and false analogies to back it up.

That you do not understand the analogy, or over extend it past it's purpose, is not a fault in the analogy. The fact remains it IS deceptive and dishonest to pretend one of us has more concern than the other about the value of "Human Life". I suggest we do not, we just differ in what we each believe constitutes what is to BE valued in "Human Life". And I suggest that the source of that value comes from more than mere DNA.

thee glitz wrote: »

You are appealing to the aspects of human life which YOU value.

Not so. I am appealing to aspects of human life from which the very concept of "value" is even derived. Nothing to do with me at all, but nice try all the same. If consciousness and sentience were removed from this universe tomorrow, what do you think would be of value anymore, and what do you think would be DOING the valuing?

No, the very concept of value is a subjective derivation of a narrative driven MIND. And Humanity is the only currently known focal point of that happening until such time as we A) discover alien life or the theists FINALLY get around to offering a SHRED of evidence for their claims a god exists.

thee glitz wrote: »

You were talking about a cow there btw. That the basis of my argument is similarly observed in other species doesn't dilute it at all. Apologies, I haven't been down the rabbit hole of nothings and no-ones before. It does appear that they warrant the same concern. I don't believe in no-ones, will have to work on that. It's a bit strange to think of a living object as being humanly male or female.

thee glitz wrote: »

It was part of a question when I said there was nothing inherently special about human life. You've shown that I was entirely correct to say that you don't see intrinsic value in it. You say that you value the attributes that arise from it, but don't care to protect the means by which they naturally develop.

I think the very thing that brings the concept of "value" into the universe is for that reason itself inevitably of value. Without consciousness and sentience in the universe there would be nothing to value, nothing to do the valuing. It is, purely by definition, the foundation of anything worth valuing or to do valuing with. And it is the ONLY attribute that differentiates us in any meaningful way from any other animal on this planet. So yes I do find value in humanity for that reason. Not for the reason that their DNA happens to be what we define as "Human". So it is NOT right to say I "don't see intrinsic value in it". I see MUCH intrinsic value in one definition of "Humanity". I just see no intrinsic value in Humanity as a biological concept alone. A Huge difference.

thee glitz wrote: »

Making determinations on the values of individuals' lives is a dangerous road to go down. I've no inclination to partake in your clutch for straws.

The only clutching at straws going on is coming from you and your nonsense claim that Genetic Gender is suggestive of "an identity". If you want to make excuses to leave, that is fine by me. But inventing excuses that attempt to make it look like this is MY failure, rather than your own, ain't gonna fly.

I am not making determination on the value of individual lives either, so you also made that up. I AM making claims about what it is that we should value in humanity as a whole, and that there is nothing about a fetus in the 0-16 weeks window that anyone (least of all you) has shown to be worthy of value at all. The dismissal by little more than assertion of my arguments is a mere cover for the fact you have offered no counter arguments related to value of your own at all.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

What I was trying to gauge was the relative importance afforded to ensuring that women don't die (or suffer unduly) vs promotion of abortion on demand.

'Relative' importance? Sweetest divine :rolleyes:.

Surely it is of utmost importance that women don't die or suffer unduly.

Can you seriously not see that even using terms like 'relative' places women in a less than equal position when it comes to how their welfare is considered?

As for this 'on demand' canard -the abortion pill has really rendered this point moot. Attempts to criminalise it in Ireland have utterly failed. That horse has well and truly bolted and it ain't getting back in the damn stable.

As mature adults the Irish electorate needs to accept that - there is a pill that enables a non-surgical abortion 'on demand' up to a certain gestation time limit. This pill is being bought on-line and illegally imported. The threat of a lengthy jail sentence has not stopped this happening - all that threat has done is pushed it underground, forced women into using it beyond the safe time limit, and denied them proper monitoring of possible side effects as they are afraid to seek medical advice.

Abortion 'on demand' is happening. It's happening quietly in bedrooms across the country. No law will stop it. We need to make sure it is happening safely with proper medical controls in place as women's lives are of importance. Not relative importance. Importance full stop.

rainbow kirby

captbarnacles wrote: »

I doubt anyone whoever describes pregnancy as an inconvenience has ever spoken to a pregnant woman.

I'm almost 37 weeks right now. Anyone who says that within earshot of me can expect a slap. :pac:

Bannasidhe

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I'm almost 37 weeks right now. Anyone who says that within earshot of me can expect a slap. :pac:

You should threaten to sit on them cos you ain't gonna be getting up again quickly and will probably urinate on them while trying.

And CONGRATULATIONS!

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah - the just suck it up and get on with it argument.

Funny how it's not used to suggest that viagra should not be available on the State's bill. We have children and the elderly languishing in misery on hospital trolleys due to lack of funds (among other things in our disastrous so-called health service) while paying €4 million a month to help men get erections. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/irish-taxpayers-foot-4m-medical-card-bill-for-monthly-viagra-30885209.html

Many men can't get it up - why can't they just get on with not getting it on?

That's a great argument, I'm with you on that.
Ask their partners how they feel about it also.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

That's a great argument, I'm with you on that.
Ask their partners how they feel about it also.

Sure that's why the good lord invented vibrators.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure that's why the good lord invented vibrators.

, shur they save men a lot of hard work too.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You really do struggle with the concept of analogy don't you? I am not saying there is a plan in the gender being determined, or that someone has such a plan. I was likening how gender is being set from the outset TO the "plan" in my blue print analogy.

I don't. You said

I am pointing out that the gender of a human being decided at the moment of conception is the plan

If something is set, it is not a plan. A plan can change, can go unused, but something set refers to an actual outcome, something which exists independently of the "plan".

That you do not understand the analogy, or over extend it past it's purpose, is not a fault in the analogy. The fact remains it IS deceptive and dishonest to pretend one of us has more concern than the other about the value of "Human Life". I suggest we do not, we just differ in what we each believe constitutes what is to BE valued in "Human Life". And I suggest that the source of that value comes from more than mere DNA.

I don't mean to say that you don't, under any circumstances, value human life, but seem to not value the capacity to develop consciousness and the inevitability of sentience, which you cling to. It must be determined that there is human life which has no value, at a stage every one of us were once at.

Not so. I am appealing to aspects of human life from which the very concept of "value" is even derived. Nothing to do with me at all, but nice try all the same.

This is straight-up I am but I'm not waffle.

If consciousness and sentience were removed from this universe tomorrow, what do you think would be of value anymore, and what do you think would be DOING the valuing?

What a very sad hypothetical situation. The capacity to regain consciousness and sentience would be valued, and maybe you'd be there not valuing it?

I think the very thing that brings the concept of "value" into the universe is for that reason itself inevitably of value. Without consciousness and sentience in the universe there would be nothing to value, nothing to do the valuing. It is, purely by definition, the foundation of anything worth valuing or to do valuing with. And it is the ONLY attribute that differentiates us in any meaningful way from any other animal on this planet. So yes I do find value in humanity for that reason. Not for the reason that their DNA happens to be what we define as "Human". So it is NOT right to say I "don't see intrinsic value in it". I see MUCH intrinsic value in one definition of "Humanity". I just see no intrinsic value in Humanity as a biological concept alone. A Huge difference.

I'm pretty sure animals value things too. Again, you go to lengths to show your humanity, to come back to the same point.

The only clutching at straws going on is coming from you and your nonsense claim that Genetic Gender is suggestive of "an identity". If you want to make excuses to leave, that is fine by me. But inventing excuses that attempt to make it look like this is MY failure, rather than your own, ain't gonna fly.

I am not making determination on the value of individual lives either, so you also made that up. I AM making claims about what it is that we should value in humanity as a whole, and that there is nothing about a fetus in the 0-16 weeks window that anyone (least of all you) has shown to be worthy of value at all. The dismissal by little more than assertion of my arguments is a mere cover for the fact you have offered no counter arguments related to value of your own at all.

You've timed it well! I indeed can't to go back and forth over this indefinitely, especially with your lengthy, wandering posts (which I suspect are copy/paste enabled, but somewhat appreciate). Certainly, I will have time to again. Perhaps you'll consider why your (or anyone's) opinion on the value a human life is important anyway.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Relative' importance? Sweetest divine :rolleyes:.

Surely it is of utmost importance that women don't die or suffer unduly.

Can you seriously not see that even using terms like 'relative' places women in a less than equal position when it comes to how their welfare is considered?

I can only deduce that you have, again, misinterpreted my post, and can't speculate as to if this was willful.

If the removal of the 8th amendment would help prevent undue harm to women, it would be better to remove abortion on demand as a possible result of doing so. This is not being contemplated - what's happening is the shameless wrapping of a 'we must prevent women dying' cloak around the push for a liberal abortion regime.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't. You said If something is set, it is not a plan. A plan can change, can go unused, but something set refers to an actual outcome, something which exists independently of the "plan".

You are still missing the point of the analogy which was only to point out that a value in a blue print, does not make the blue print a house, in the same way as a value in the DNA of a fetus or zygote does not make it a human individual. The analogy has no other purpose than that, and is not negates by your over extending it or failing to understand it.

Your ENTIRE point here is only coming across as saying the fact that it's gender is determined is somehow suggestive of an individual. It is not. No more than it is in an earthworm or a cow. What makes you an individual as in an individual human PERSON is little to do with your DNA (After all many people share theirs with an identical twin and share much of it with their direct relatives) and pretty much everything to do with your being an individual instance of human sentience.

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't mean to say that you don't, under any circumstances, value human life, but seem to not value the capacity to develop consciousness and the inevitability of sentience, which you cling to. It must be determined that there is human life which has no value, at a stage every one of us were once at. This is straight-up I am but I'm not waffle. What a very sad hypothetical situation. The capacity to regain consciousness and sentience would be valued, and maybe you'd be there not valuing it?

Yes, there is a point we were all at before which we had no attributes to which we could meaningfully assign general value, or moral and ethical concern. That is exactly my position yes. I value human life above all else currently, but in doing so I distinguish between "human life" in terms of pure biological taxonomy, and "human life" in terms of the attributes that constitute what it meaningfully IS to be "human".

Also it is not that I do not value the "capacity to develop consciousness" at all. I very much do. If I built a General Artificial Intelligence tomorrow, I do not think I have any moral or ethical compunction to actually turn it on. But I very, very very very, much would want to. Because I recognize both the capacity to develop a new consciousness, and the value in doing so IN GENERAL.

But we are not talking about IN GENERAL here with abortion. Rather we are talking about curtailing the well being, choices, options, freedoms and wishes of an actual living sentient consciousness (the pregnant woman) in deference to a not just slightly but ENTIRELY non-sentient blob of meat. All because some people imagine some ethical and moral conundrum in an imaginary onus to realize it's potential.

And other than assertion of that moral position, I have seen literally nothing offered in argument for taking it seriously or as at all important.

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm pretty sure animals value things too. Again, you go to lengths to show your humanity, to come back to the same point. You've timed it well! I indeed can't to go back and forth over this indefinitely, especially with your lengthy, wandering posts (which I suspect are copy/paste enabled, but somewhat appreciate). Certainly, I will have time to again. Perhaps you'll consider why your (or anyone's) opinion on the value a human life is important anyway.

But I have already explained why my position on it is important. Because my position on what we value is predicated first and foremost on that aspect of humanity that ALLOWS us to value anything in the first place. A rather relevant foundation don't you think? And pointless personal comments about ME and my post style, put in only for filler and no utility, aside there is certainly a difference between me offering that grounding in my position.......... and people like eotr simply asserting theirs and running away and ignoring posts that question it.

If you think in general "animals value things" then I can only ask you what you think that means and what you think their "valuing" consists of first and foremost, before going on to discuss how that differs from what it consists of in humans. Because if you think it is somehow the same thing....... I can not wait to see you explain how.

Hannibal_Smith

thee glitz wrote: »

Pro abortion rights campaigners seemingly refuse to contemplate (even the possibility of) a situation where women's lives could be saved, unless it also allows abortion whyever.

This literally made me LOL. Of course there are situations where a pregnant woman's life can be saved without abortion!

thee glitz

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

This literally made me LOL. Of course there are situations where a pregnant woman's life can be saved without abortion!

The situation I was (obviously) referring to was the removal of the 8th.

robbiezero

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but will a 12 week limit on abortion as proposed by the Oireachtas committee restrict "full bodily autonomy"?

nozzferrahhtoo

robbiezero wrote: »

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but will a 12 week limit on abortion as proposed by the Oireachtas committee restrict "full bodily autonomy"?

To a point yes! The phrase I like to use in answer to that point is "I have the full right to swing my arms around wildly, but that right ends where your face begins".

I think the position of pro-choice people who believe in a term limit (usually of the form of 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks) is that a woman has full bodily autonomy over her own PERSON up until the point where they feel ANOTHER person comes into the equation.

So just like I have fully bodily autonomy to swing my fists around, up to where your face is, a woman should have fully bodily autonomy up to the point another PERSON can be said to be effected by her choices.

And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.

But there is nothing going on in the fetus at 12, 16, even 20 weeks that can meaningfully ground a conversation about the existence of another person with rights.

.......

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

put in only for filler and no utility

With no hint of irony :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.

Progressively?

robbiezero

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To a point yes! The phrase I like to use in answer to that point is "I have the full right to swing my arms around wildly, but that right ends where your face begins".

I think the position of pro-choice people who believe in a term limit (usually of the form of 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks) is that a woman has full bodily autonomy over her own PERSON up until the point where they feel ANOTHER person comes into the equation.

So just like I have fully bodily autonomy to swing my fists around, up to where your face is, a woman should have fully bodily autonomy up to the point another PERSON can be said to be effected by her choices.

And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.

But there is nothing going on in the fetus at 12, 16, even 20 weeks that can meaningfully ground a conversation about the existence of another person with rights.

Cheers for that. That is a good explanation. The "full" is a bit confusing in the slogan.

thee glitz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A lot of people view abortion as being wrong, except justifiable under a limited set of circumstances. They would
be inclined to vote against a motion to repeal the 8th, but could be persuaded to vote for it if it wasn't a vote
towards abortion in demand. Without the facility to do so, the risk of a no-strings referendum on repealing the 8th
failing is greater. These are separate issues, but presented as an all or nothinq question, which doesn't serve democracy.
We can do better than this.

No one is wrapping anything but even you must admit - the 8th is a failure. Beside the side effects of affecting womens maternity care and the extreme failures such as Savita, or the poor woman who was kept as a zombie on life support because there was a fetal heartbeat - but, it doesnt even stop abortions - they happen anyway, either in Ireland illegally, or women travel for them - both of which cases risk womens health and life. So it does nothing positive - at all!

Sure there are problems with the 8th, but it does make abortion on demand illegal. Perhaps greater effort could
be put into enforcing our laws and it might save some (more?) lives... The argument that abortion on demand
should be legal because it's available elsewhere is a poor one. What if it became illegal in Britain (and technically it is)?
Why 12 weeks if somewhere else allows more?

captbarnacles

Actually I think most people would agree with abortion in cases if rape and given the timeframes to try and prove that and the lunacy of tasking someone with deciding if the complainant was 'really' raped there must be a window to allow it. My guess is that it will be a close vote but that will sway it to repeal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

With no hint of irony :pac: Progressively?

None at all, but nice of you to dodge the entire post by barely taking exception to one line in it.

As for "progressively" by this I mean, the more impact ones choices has, the more such choices need to be mediated and curtailed. If ones choices as a sentient agent impact another sentient agent, then the requirement to curtail or mediate those choices should scale progressively with the level of that impact.

robbiezero wrote: »

Cheers for that. That is a good explanation. The "full" is a bit confusing in the slogan.

Yeah, I have yet to meet a slogan that fully explains the nuance of the position behind it. They are all confusing and misleading really.

thee glitz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough, but that's also a poor reason. We don't just always get what we want. I doubt travelling to the UK makes an abortion unsafe (it's inherently unsafe for the baby btw), not that we should be too concerned with what they do anyway.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None at all, but nice of you to dodge the entire post by barely taking exception to one line in it.

Aww I'm not dodging it, just got stuffs to do.