The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

life cycle of a human, though. not a flower, or a house-fly,

Again no one is denying that either. You genuinely appear to think you have a point to make. Or at least that is the benefit of the doubt I want to give as I try to suspect the best of people before suspecting the worst. But whatever that point is, you are not getting it across at all I am afraid.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a non sentient entity being aborted. Non sentient entities do not have the capacity of choice in the first place. You can not "deny" something that it does not have in the first place any more than you can pour water out of an empty cup.

Do you pour water out of empty cups often?



I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle. But that is about all.

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

I'd reply to that by saying, I do understand what your arguments are, but I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.
Even if abortion is to be considered, I would hope that there would be more concern shown than that, because if that is the argument for abortion on demand, I would feel all humanity has gone out of the debate.

Ismisejack

]Here's a reply to AmDublins post btw Women don’t magically get pregnant, and I don’t need explain the chemistry so everyone is aware, therefore a woman should think hard before taking any risks that may lead to pregnancy as killing the poor innocent baby to solve there own problems is in humane and cannot be tolerated. Nobody is forcing a woman to have a child, she holds the control over whether she has one or not, and must realise if they go through the child making procedures ( unprotected sex) and a pregnancy occurs that was her choice and she cannot go back on that at the expense of a precious life.

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

]Here's a reply to AmDublins post btw Women don’t magically get pregnant, and I don’t need explain the chemistry so everyone is aware, therefore a woman should think hard before taking any risks that may lead to pregnancy as killing the poor innocent baby to solve there own problems is in humane and cannot be tolerated. Nobody is forcing a woman to have a child, she holds the control over whether she has one or not, and must realise if they go through the child making procedures ( unprotected sex) and a pregnancy occurs that was her choice and she cannot go back on that at the expense of a precious life.

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Ismisejack

January wrote: »

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

Its anti choice bingo all over again.

So you're in favour of stopping women from travelling for abortions?

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I do understand what your arguments are, but I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.

Confusing that in one breath you claim to understand what my arguments are but then in the next breath claim you do not understand the one thing that pretty much makes up the entirety of what my arguments are. Which is it?

Either way I am happy to explain my arguments/position on abortion again:

1) Morals and ethics, unless you are some believer in nonsense like gods, has only one source. And that is consciousness and sentience.

2) Morals and ethics are in the business of doing one thing.... mediating the actions and well being of conscious and sentient creatures.

3) I therefore suspect, and other arguments and thought experiments bear this out, that it is TO consciousness and sentience that we are generally assigning our moral and ethical concern.

4) Therefore any entity that is in NO WAY in possession of these faculties, is therefore not an entity worthy of moral or ethical concern.

5) The fetus at 0-16 weeks is an entity that lacks the faculty ENTIRELY. A common housefly has more capacity for sentience than such a fetus. Therefore I would have more (though still very little) moral and ethical concern for the well being of the common house fly than I have for a 16 week old fetus.

If there is any part of that that requires further explanation, give me the number from 1 to 5 and I will elaborate on it further.

Edward M wrote: »

because if that is the argument for abortion on demand, I would feel all humanity has gone out of the debate.

And I would simply say the opposite. The core of my argument is not to throw humanity out of the debate, but to refine our understanding of what the word "Humanity" actually means in this context, where it applies, and why it applies.

Rather than just fly the flag of the single word "Humanity" therefore.... what I move to do is distill out from behind that word the actual attributes, the actual values, and the actual goals that are hidden behind it.

WHAT precisely about "humanity" is it we value, should value, could value. And equally importantly WHY.

And what I have found is that everything on the list that that endeavor produces........ are PRECISELY the attributes that a 16 week old fetus lacks. Not just slightly lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks. There is no coherent basis being offered for affording moral and ethical concern to said fetus. Least of all on this thread.

So humanity is not gone out of my debate, rather it has been made front and center of it, and a very bright very revealing spot light turned on it to see what parts of it are shadow, and what parts are actual substance.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

So what? Just because people know the risk of a certain action, that does not mean we stand our high horse over them and wag our finger at them when it goes wrong.

In some sport for example people cover themselves in protective gear. Sometimes this does not help and they still get injured.

What happens in that moment? Does a doctor run over to them and instantly help them?

Or does some knight in rusty armor..... that he believes to be pure white in his own self satisfied head........... ride over on his equally pathetic matted high steed..... and wag a finger screaming "You knew the risks kid!".

Check your privilege at the door please, not everyone is sexually educated. Not everyone consents to sex. Not everyone even knows they HAD sex. Not everyone can simply practice meticulous abstinence. Not everyone lives in the ideal world you merely imagine exists it seems.

And in fact places that have practiced the nonsense abstinence approaches to sex and sexuality have resulted in MORE unwanted and MORE teen pregnancies.

Further not everyone who seeks an abortion does so because of an unplanned pregnancy either. Some people actually do plan to get pregnant but when it happens their circumstances suddenly change and parenthood etc is no longer a viable option. Perhaps they lose their job. Perhaps they lose their partner. Perhaps there is a change in their health or well being. This assumption that anyone seeking an abortion was either raped, or irresponsible with contraception, or contraception failed.... is not a safe assumption.

The number of reasons people seek abortion are likely as individual as they themselves are. That you assume narratives in order to protect an agenda you can not defend in itself.... reveals much.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.

How much concern do you or any pro-lifer express for fertilized eggs created in a lab during IVF treatment? They are alive, they are uniquely human just like a 10 week fetus, they have the same potential to grow into a human being...

And nobody in today's debate gives a rat's ass about them.

Now - imagine for a moment that I feel the same way about an 8 week fetus as you feel about an IVF fertilized egg.

Ismisejack

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

What about smokers? And drinkers? And drug takers?
Should we deny them medical treatment because they knew the risks?

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How much concern do you or any pro-lifer express for fertilized eggs created in a lab during IVF treatment? They are alive, they are uniquely human just like a 10 week fetus, they have the same potential to grow into a human being...

And nobody in today's debate gives a rat's ass about them.

Now - imagine for a moment that I feel the same way about an 8 week fetus as you feel about an IVF fertilized egg.

That's not my point, but anyway, I care more about them than to compare their existence to a fly.
I think comparing an unborn at any stage to having as little value as a fly is degrading to humanity.
Let's campaign on the basis that abortion should be as easy as swatting a fly, even if you do believe it, and see how the campaign goes.
Absolutely soulless language IMO, and that's not a religious soulless, that's a human feeling I mean when I say it.
So many great stories on here from women who had abortions, wrestled with their thoughts before they reached their decisions.
Comparisons of fetus to fly's is a mockery of human existence IMO.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I think comparing an unborn at any stage to having as little value as a fly is degrading to humanity.

And as I said in the post you skipped over above, it is actually the complete opposite. It is not degrading humanity, it is identifying "humanity" very specifically and elevating it to being all important.

The moment sentience and consciousness comes on line, the moment the fetus therefore has become an actual member of what I believe the set "humanity" actually means...... then I afford it all the love, respect, and moral and ethical concern I would afford to YOU or even to MYSELF or my own children.

Consciousness and Sentience (the core attributes of what it means to be Humanity really) are paramount to me and I am not degrading it at all, but being SPECIFIC about it. And when an entity lacks those things, it is not morally or ethically important to me. At all.

Nothing I am saying is soulless or a mockery of human existence. It is actually a celebration of human existence, while being ABSOLUTELY specific about what it is I am celebrating and why and when.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

That's not my point, but anyway, I care more about them than to compare their existence to a fly.

That 2009 case ruled that these living microscopic human beings have no rights whatsoever - literally as much legal protection as a fly.

And you are OK with that, with IVF, with research, with Morning After contraception.

So actually, you are just somehow upset at the language, not the fact that these micro-babies have the same rights as a fly.

captbarnacles

Ismisejack wrote: »

January wrote: »

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

And here we are again - in a faster time than normal. 'if you can't keep your legs close then tough'.

JDD

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

Are you honestly suggesting I shouldn't have sex with my husband from now until I go through the menopause? Are you honestly suggesting that? I'd love you to stand in front of my husband and say that, and say y'know, that its for the greater good.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That 2009 case ruled that these living microscopic human beings have no rights whatsoever - literally as much legal protection as a fly.

And you are OK with that, with IVF, with research, with Morning After contraception.

So actually, you are just somehow upset at the language, not the fact that these micro-babies have the same rights as a fly.

The language isn't as important as the thought process involved. Same as the ivf case being given no rights. Legal support of anything doesent always have my approval.
The fact that a human who is pregnant or anyone supporting abortion on demand can give as little thought to aborting a pregnancy as they would to swatting a fly is what I find hard to accept.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Call me Al

JDD wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting I shouldn't have sex with my husband from now until I go through the menopause? Are you honestly suggesting that? I'd love you to stand in front of my husband and say that, and say y'know, that its for the greater good.

Well a poster on here brought up the concept of original sin and indicated that the purpose of heterosexual sex is procreation, so I think for many of these save the 8r's the idea that a woman must be prepared for an unplanned pregnancy each and every time they have sex is an actual belief.
I mean even Ceausescu was ok with women over 40 (initially 45) being permitted an abortion, and we all know the diabolical person he was.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

JDD wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting I shouldn't have sex with my husband from now until I go through the menopause? Are you honestly suggesting that? I'd love you to stand in front of my husband and say that, and say y'know, that its for the greater good.

Wait... you're not ashamed of having sex with your husband for purposes other than procreation?

Consonata

Billy86 wrote:

Wait... you're not ashamed of having sex with your husband for purposes other than procreation?

Why should they be?

January

Billy86 wrote: »

Wait... you're not ashamed of having sex with your husband for purposes other than procreation?

Imagine that... :cool:

amdublin

Consonata wrote: »

Why should they be?

I think it was sarcasm! At least I hope so

_Roz_

Edward M wrote: »

The language isn't as important as the thought process involved. Same as the ivf case being given no rights. Legal support of anything doesent always have my approval.
The fact that a human who is pregnant or anyone supporting abortion on demand can give as little thought to aborting a pregnancy as they would to swatting a fly is what I find hard to accept.

I kind of agree with this a bit.

I will never understand how people can say it's more okay to break up a clump of cells than to have a late-term abortion, when they're stages in the same cycle and the outcome is the same (preventing a life). Obviously, it's more okay in terms of if you're gonna do it, do it when it's too undeveloped to feel pain etc, but outside of that - I'm pro-choice, but I find the very real disregard for the potential of life to be callous and heartless. I would at least recognise the destruction of a clump of cells in my womb to be the prevention of a life that would have been lived had it not been for me putting myself first. I would never feel inherently entitled to do it, and therefore would feel terrible if it happened. I would put myself first, because I do think the living person is more important and frankly I'm selfish, but I don't think that prevention of a developing life has no moral importance at all. And I would acknowledge I prevented a life to further my own as I saw fit.

amdublin

Sex is ok folks!

It's a good thing. The human touch and connection is a good thing for the soul.

pilly

Ismisejack wrote: »

Pro choice yee call yeerselfs?? The ultimate choice is the choice one has over whether they life or die and by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered. Abortion Denys a child it’s only life, abortion is murder. If an abortion doesn’t take place a child has a life whereas abortion takes that child’s life, it’s only life. Yee talk about the woman having the child but that isn’t a matter of life or death, unlike in the babies case

Did you copy and paste that crap from Facebook? :rolleyes:

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I said in the post you skipped over above, it is actually the complete opposite. It is not degrading humanity, it is identifying "humanity" very specifically and elevating it to being all important.

The moment sentience and consciousness comes on line, the moment the fetus therefore has become an actual member of what I believe the set "humanity" actually means...... then I afford it all the love, respect, and moral and ethical concern I would afford to YOU or even to MYSELF or my own children.

Consciousness and Sentience (the core attributes of what it means to be Humanity really) are paramount to me and I am not degrading it at all, but being SPECIFIC about it. And when an entity lacks those things, it is not morally or ethically important to me. At all.

Nothing I am saying is soulless or a mockery of human existence. It is actually a celebration of human existence, while being ABSOLUTELY specific about what it is I am celebrating and why and when.

So you are ok with keeping comatose people alive and harvesting their organs, then disposing of them?

The thing you don’t seem to get is that the very proposition that human life has to pass your test of worthiness is morally highly suspect from the get-go. What gives you or anyone else the right to set the bar? And if we go down the rabbit hole, there’s nothing to say the lines can’t be re-drawn when social circumstances and norms change. I’m a non-religious atheist, but at least the religious are consistent, you don’t have the moral authority or justification for defining a worthy or unworthy life. It is worthy of moral rights by its own existence.

And it doesn’t have to be about rights, it’s also about values. We prosecute people for animal cruelty if they abuse pets or livestock, we ban gorse burning and hedge cutting at certain times of year because it would interfere with the reproduction of small birds and animals. We guard yellow metal mined from the ground with walls, barbed wire and armed police.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

Did you copy and paste that crap from Facebook? :rolleyes:

Chapter 1, page 1 of the Iona playbook.

Consonata

Charmeleon wrote: »

So you are ok with keeping comatose people alive and harvesting their organs, then disposing of them?

Theres a difference between "having had sentience" and not yet having it at all. Its a completely seperate case from abortion.