The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

rainbow kirby

Sweetemotion wrote: »

There is also adoption.

Adoption doesn't solve the problem of not wanting to carry to term in the first place or where carrying to term poses an unacceptable risk to physical or mental health for the pregnant person. It's an appropriate choice for some people if that's what they want but isn't the panacea that the anti-choice movement likes to suggest it is.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.....but I will not question your right to bring up a 2000 year old Greek text .........

You brought up the 2000 year old Greek text


right here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104999049&postcount=1637




This is the relevant line from the Oath you brought up :

"And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary"

Abortion was legal at the time, the Oath you brought up only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.




(Myrrh is an abortificant and emmenagogue - might have been used at the time for soaking pessaries

- easy to remember because the Three Wise Men and their gold, frankincense & Myrrh )

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.............

The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity in their updated Hippocratic Oath where the agreed text was :

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

and in 1984 ? 2005 2017 The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity at all with

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life ;

and you knew this :

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

anyway - again, i've seen this carry-on in other threads here - those "little victories" - lol 'tis comedy gold


.

GritBiscuit

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

Both wont survive.

Of course a one year old can survive on it's own outside the womb - currently my friend has a 6 week old who nearly goes thru the night without requiring any input from her.

Survival on it's own is generally referring to the ability to survive independently for some (any!) duration, rather than indefinitely without sustenance - a situation which would kill most living things.

We're all clumps of cells when you get down to it. The debate is whether the rights of sentient clumps of cells should take precedent over those of non...

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next the unborn will be looking for rights.

I hope they look for it based on a set of arguments that would not require us to give rights to rocks too then. Because as I see it the concept of rights is linked inextricably with consciousness and sentience which a fetus at 16 weeks simply does not have in any form, in any way.

So whatever arguments these fetuses managed to put forward arguing they should have rights, I can only hope that the same arguments are not equally applicable to rocks which have, I trust you will notice, the same level of faculty for consciousness as they do.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The right not to be killed supersedes the right not to be pregnant.

Sure but at that point it becomes incumbent upon the speaker to define exactly what entities should be allocated that right and on what basis. Clearly it is not a right we assign to ALL life, as our medical, meat, paper and agriculture industries will attest.

So clearly there is some attribute, or set of attributes, an individual entity must have attained in order to qualify for said right. My own pro choice stance, with time limitations, is based on recognizing what those attributes are, and realizing the entity being aborted (almost always a fetus between 0 and 16 weeks gestation) has not at any point attained them.

Unlike many people who declare their position on abortion (for or against) is unchangeable I know mine very much CAN be changed. And I know how. All that is required is a single argument as to why a fetus at, say, 12 weeks should be considered to be eligible for said rights.

After 20+ years of asking, no such argument has been forthcoming. I remain, however, agog.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life

Is it though? You use paper I assume, with little regard for the trees that were hacked down to make it. If you are not a vegetarian or maybe even vegan (I am neither) than it would seem there is a lot more going on in your morality than a mere "life is life". Viruses and Bacteria could be said to be life, but I suspect you likely take anti virals, anti bacterials, and use such in cleaning all the time. The list goes on, but I think you will find that "life is life" is not actually a philosophy you likely live by. Unless you are a Jain, in which case you have my apology (and sympathy).

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

No, because said child is a conscious and sentient agent and therefore should be the recipient of our moral and ethical concern. A fetus at 12 or 16 weeks (when the near totality of abortions by choice actually occur) however is NOT in any way such an entity. Not even a little bit.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

Well sure, we do that all the time. There is no "should" in play there however as I think it is the decision of the doctors AND the people who said person has in their lives as medical proxy.

However the difference AGAIN as above is that said coma patient has a fully formed faculty of human sentience and consciousness. Sure, it is currently not operating correctly at the time but it exists and it is there. And as such the patient is an entity that has attained rights, and should be an agent of moral and ethical concern to us.

Again however a fetus not only lacks that faculty, it has never had it any any time EVER up until the point the abortion occurs. This is no small distinction.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

There are complexities in the right to die debate that I think are not conveyed in your question here but in general yes, I do think people should have the right to die under their own choice or some set of pre-determined measures.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

If that is all you hear, then that can only be due to selective attention on your own part because there are a WEALTH of argument out there that do not fit what you have described.

I myself for example have posted on many threads, this one included, on how I do not think viability (survival outside the womb) is a coherent or useful measure for the cut off of abortion rights. Not least because, under the progress of human science, it is a moving target. I actually suspect/expect that we are not far from the point where wombs are not just slightly, but ENTIRELY, superfluous to requirements in human reproduction.

So if you want to hear more from the pro choice side, I recommend that you start actually listening. Without filter.

That said however........

Sweetemotion wrote: »

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

............ you are misrepresenting the viability argument here. The 1 year old baby will not survive without care, true. But nor will many premature babies survive outside the womb without the care of our modern medical advances.

That is NOT what the viability argument is about.

The viability argument is about at what point, under care, a baby can survive without the womb. This is a poor argument for abortion in my view, but at least it is a coherent one. No baby, premature or otherwise is going to survive without care at all as you point out.

So you and I agree that viability is a poor mediation point for abortion cut offs. But I fear you disagree with an incomplete and inaccurate version of that argument which I recommend you correct.

FutureGuy

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

Out of interest, what was the name of the FFA that she was initially diagnosed with and what testing was done to come to that diagnosis?

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are complexities in the right to die debate that I think are not conveyed in your question here but in general yes, I do think people should have the right to die under their own choice or some set of pre-determined measures.

I love when people throw in the "what about euthanasia!!!" argument like it's some kind of argument-killer. Euthanasia is several times less contentious and less ethically fraught than abortion. The common thread of course being the individual's right to choose.

So I guess it's no surprise that people who are anti-choice see euthanasia as an argument-killer, when in reality it only strengthens any pro-choice argument.

SafeSurfer

seamus wrote: »

I love when people throw in the "what about euthanasia!!!" argument like it's some kind of argument-killer. Euthanasia is several times less contentious and less ethically fraught than abortion. The common thread of course being the individual's right to choose.

So I guess it's no surprise that people who are anti-choice see euthanasia as an argument-killer, when in reality it only strengthens any pro-choice argument.

Maybe its not as contentious because the one life that is being ended gets to choose. There are ethical dilemmas around euthanasia. Would you restrict it to terminal patients, or allow those with depression to end their lives also?

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe its not as contentious because the one life that is being ended gets to choose.

Ah perhaps you are not up on the Euthanasia debate but in fact what you describe above is not always the case. Very often the debate discusses situations where medical personnel or medical proxies are left with the decision.

Often, but not always, the patient has left some kind of instructions. But like with many things in law the instructions do no cover every scenario or eventuality. And then it could fall to medical professionals, or the patients medical proxy, to interpret those instructions.

But a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks is not a decision making entity. Not because it is to young or lacks the ability. It lacks the entire faculty that underpins being an entity that can or would make decisions. Therefore you are kind of making the point for me with your sentence above. Abortion of a 12 week fetus should not BE contentious, because the only entity that is a decision making entity in the equation IS the mother. The Fetus is not.

volchitsa

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe its not as contentious because the one life that is being ended gets to choose. There are ethical dilemmas around euthanasia. Would you restrict it to terminal patients, or allow those with depression to end their lives also?

Of course there are ethical dilemmas around euthanasia too, but it's not the case that the persons whose life is being ended always get to choose : in many cases the person has left no official record, so it all depends on what the family say he/she would have wanted had they known this would happen.

In the case of abortion, the question is whether the life that is being ended is at a stage where it is capable of having any capacity for any sort of wishes or choice at all, never mind a choice about its life or death. Since there is a living breathing person involved, the pro choice argument is that one would need to be very sure that there is any reason to "consult" the fetus inside her about her decision before preventing her from acting on her decision.

volchitsa

I see you got there before me, Nozzferrahtoo.:)

SafeSurfer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah perhaps you are not up on the Euthanasia debate but in fact what you describe above is not always the case. Very often the debate discusses situations where medical personnel or medical proxies are left with the decision.

Often, but not always, the patient has left some kind of instructions. But like with many things in law the instructions do no cover every scenario or eventuality. And then it could fall to medical professionals, or the patients medical proxy, to interpret those instructions.

But a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks is not a decision making entity. Not because it is to young or lacks the ability. It lacks the entire faculty that underpins being an entity that can or would make decisions. Therefore you are kind of making the point for me with your sentence above. Abortion of a 12 week fetus should not BE contentious, because the only entity that is a decision making entity in the equation IS the mother. The Fetus is not.

You miss my point entirely or do you believe we should be able to choose to kill anything that cannot choose whether it lives or dies?

Hotblack Desiato

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm prochoice but can't see this passing. I fear too many asshats on the repeal side will damage their cause. Obviously there are asshats on both sides but it's the repeal ones that will do the damage.

I get the distinct impression that the only sort of pro-choice campaign the people who make statements like the above ^^^ will find acceptable, is practically no campaign at all.

And then they expect us to believe that they're really pro-choice voters?

Are you going to threaten to vote No if the pro-choice 'asshats' are too 'shrill'?

Heard a lot of very similar guff in 2015 and it didn't hold any water then either.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You miss my point entirely or do you believe we should be able to choose to kill anything that cannot choose whether it lives or dies?

Saying someone missed the point without saying what point was missed is somewhat unhelpful. If I missed the point I am unlikely to be able to correct the oversight without some assistance.

However you made the point that with euthanasia " the one life that is being ended gets to choose." and I pointed out this is not an entirely true statement.

So, as I said, what point you imagine I missed is entirely unclear to me and, I somewhat suspect, to you to.

SafeSurfer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hope they look for it based on a set of arguments that would not require us to give rights to rocks too then. Because as I see it the concept of rights is linked inextricably with consciousness and sentience which a fetus at 16 weeks simply does not have in any form, in any way.

So whatever arguments these fetuses managed to put forward arguing they should have rights, I can only hope that the same arguments are not equally applicable to rocks which have, I trust you will notice, the same level of faculty for consciousness as they do.



Sure but at that point it becomes incumbent upon the speaker to define exactly what entities should be allocated that right and on what basis. Clearly it is not a right we assign to ALL life, as our medical, meat, paper and agriculture industries will attest.

So clearly there is some attribute, or set of attributes, an individual entity must have attained in order to qualify for said right. My own pro choice stance, with time limitations, is based on recognizing what those attributes are, and realizing the entity being aborted (almost always a fetus between 0 and 16 weeks gestation) has not at any point attained them.

Unlike many people who declare their position on abortion (for or against) is unchangeable I know mine very much CAN be changed. And I know how. All that is required is a single argument as to why a fetus at, say, 12 weeks should be considered to be eligible for said rights.

After 20+ years of asking, no such argument has been forthcoming. I remain, however, agog.

Rocks and meat will not become adults like you and I if not aborted.

What is your criteria for the discovery of life on mars?

If your argument is that a child in the womb should be afforded no more rights than a rock or a piece of meat and that they are equivalent I would have to disagree.

SafeSurfer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Saying someone missed the point without saying what point was missed is somewhat unhelpful. If I missed the point I am unlikely to be able to correct the oversight without some assistance.

However you made the point that with euthanasia " the one life that is being ended gets to choose." and I pointed out this is not an entirely true statement.

So, as I said, what point you imagine I missed is entirely unclear to me and, I somewhat suspect, to you to.

Apologies. I should have said all things being equal, in the majority of cases individuals whose lives are ended by euthanasia have more choice in their end of life experience than those whose lives are ended by abortion.

volchitsa

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Apologies. I should have said all things being equal, in the majority of cases individuals whose lives are ended by euthanasia have more choice in their end of life experience than those whose lives are ended by abortion.

Except all things are not equal : the person being considered for euthanasia is, at most, requiring the use of an expensive machine to keep him/her alive. They're not living inside another person, and preventingat person from living their own lives without hindrance.

Which is why abortion is entirely different from "involuntary" euthanasia, and much easier to justify in terms of human rights.

SafeSurfer

volchitsa wrote: »

Except all things are not equal : the person being considered for euthanasia is, at most, requiring the use of an expensive machine to keep him/her alive. They're not living inside another person, and preventingat person from living their own lives without hindrance.

Which is why abortion is entirely different from "involuntary" euthanasia, and much easier to justify in terms of human rights.

Is it so different? They are both the most vulnerable of humans, dependent on others to keep them alive. The only difference I can see is one has a life ahead of them if they are not killed and the other doesn't.

ohnonotgmail

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is it so different? They are both the most vulnerable of humans, dependent on others to keep them alive. The only difference I can see is one has a life ahead of them if they are not killed and the other doesn't.

you forget the bit about living inside a human being preventing that human being from living their life. also that a foetus can in no way be described as conscious.

Martina1991

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is it so different? They are both the most vulnerable of humans, dependent on others to keep them alive. The only difference I can see is one has a life ahead of them if they are not killed and the other doesn't.

A person who wishes to be euthanised is not putting another persons life in danger.

What life would a infant with a fatal fetal abnormality have.
What kind of life would an infant have being raised in child services.
What kind of life would an infant have if they were the product of rape.
What kind of life would an infant have to a mother who cannot financially/physically/ mentally care for the child.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I get the distinct impression that the only sort of pro-choice campaign the people who make statements like the above ^^^ will find acceptable, is practically no campaign at all.

And then they expect us to believe that they're really pro-choice voters?

Are you going to threaten to vote No if the pro-choice 'asshats' are too 'shrill'?

Heard a lot of very similar guff in 2015 and it didn't hold any water then either.

Whatever about the pro-choice side, it's the middle that needs to be won over. And the "shrillness" will cost votes if it continues. FFS I saw someone post a video with the title "The 8 most annoying things about being pregnant" with #RepealThe8th after it. Who is that going to win over?

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about the pro-choice side, it's the middle that needs to be won over. And the "shrillness" will cost votes if it continues. FFS I saw someone post a video with the title "The 8 most annoying things about being pregnant" with #RepealThe8th after it. Who is that going to win over?

Did you watch the video?

(It's not all about swollen feet and weird cravings...)

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

(It's not all about swollen feet and weird cravings...)

I assumed it wasn't. It's really not the point though. I know how I'm voting, but it's not people like me who are going to swing this vote.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I assumed it wasn't. It's really not the point though. I know how I'm voting, but it's not people like me who are going to swing this vote.

When that video was initially shared there was no hint that it was anything but your usual funny video. It's not emblazoned at the start with logos or hashtags about repeal, and it's only after a couple of minutes that the message becomes clear.

It was later on that people started adding hashtags and crap to it, which I agree with you, are going to turn "the middle" away from watching it.

That video is actually a perfect example of the kind of thing that will win the middle over, so it's an unfortunate choice on your part. Though I agree with you in being critical of people "spoiling" the video by revealing its nature and therefore reducing its effect.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Rocks and meat will not become adults like you and I if not aborted.

So? I do not care what they MIGHT become in the future. I am discussing what they are NOW.

We do not, for example, lock people up for crimes we think they MIGHT commit. Your rights in that regard are GENERALLY based on the present and your past, not your probable future.

The simple fact is the rock, and the fetus, are not those things NOW. So why should they be given rights NOW?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Apologies. I should have said all things being equal, in the majority of cases individuals whose lives are ended by euthanasia have more choice in their end of life experience than those whose lives are ended by abortion.

Which still leaves my point unaddressed. A person being euthanized has, at some point in the past, been allocated rights. Including a right to life.

The question is WHEN and WHY did that occur.

I have explored that question myself, at great length, through biology and philosophy and morality and ethics. And I see NO reason to think the event happens on or before week 16 of fetal gestation.

If you are aware of an argument I missed, then you have the potential to change my entire outlook on abortion at the click of your fingers. Which I would do without hesitation, embarrassment, or reluctance.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's the system we have and winning in this case is hugely important. Shrillness ain't the only thing though, the glib and crass stuff is off-putting for a lot of people and as much as they're obviously complete idiots who have no place in a functional society whatsoever their votes will count as much as yours or mine.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

When that video was initially shared there was no hint that it was anything but your usual funny video. It's not emblazoned at the start with logos or hashtags about repeal, and it's only after a couple of minutes that the message becomes clear.

It was later on that people started adding hashtags and crap to it, which I agree with you, are going to turn "the middle" away from watching it.

That video is actually a perfect example of the kind of thing that will win the middle over, so it's an unfortunate choice on your part. Though I agree with you in being critical of people "spoiling" the video by revealing its nature and therefore reducing its effect.

It wasn't the video itself, it was the way it was framed. I've been online long enough to "get" how the internet works, the people who haven't made up their minds yet are less likely to have been.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

It wasn't the video itself, it was the way it was framed.

I agree. But it wasn't framed like that at all when it was originally released. That's what I mean.