The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m not outraged I’m just fascinated.
If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.
It’s ridiculous . A baby is a baby at 20+ weeks .........

A fetus is a fetus at 20+ weeks

Definition of fetus

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare embryo 1b


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

Thirdfox

LirW wrote: »

Sorry, had to shorten your post there because of wall of text reasons.

See I fully get where you're coming from.

I'm assuming that the 12 weeks time limit has to do with the proven medical facts. The first trimester of a pregnancy is the time where most things can go wrong. Up to 12 weeks almost half of all conceived pregnancies abort naturally, most of them so early that the woman never knows she was actually expecting.
While every embryo develops differently there are major milestones met around 13-14 weeks.
To put it in a stupid term, it's the most "humane" time to end a pregnancy.
Also taking into account that not every woman finds out in week 5 or 6 that she's pregnant but a good bit later.
It would be very unusual to not have found out by 12 weeks.

The reason why 24 weeks are in place for severe cases of FFA is that certain tests can only be carried out between 13 and 24 weeks. In week 13 is the best time to have a nuchal translucency and if that's abnormal you can go from there. The most accurate test can only be carried out at around 20 weeks which gives you a very good indication of what's most likely wrong with the baby. There are FFAs where the child wouldn't survive the birth or the first few hours after it, so this is the last time for parents to decide if they want to go ahead anyway or not. Again 24 weeks is the very earliest that a baby can be kept alive outside the womb. The chances that they'll make it are a lot lower than for example a preemie that's born at 30 weeks, in that case every day counts.
I believe that an ethical component is in fact the reason why these limits are set. They are not fully random but this is the best compromise from an ethical and medical point of view.


Regarding paternal rights, this is something where I wanna come back to another point you mentioned: Going ahead with a pregnancy that's unwanted.
See, a pregnancy takes a toll on every woman. Some are super happy and just seem to fly through it but others don't. It can have a horrible impact on your mental health even if your child is planned or not.
So if you're not in the perfect circumstances, the chances that this will take a toll is a lot higher.
While the infertility of one couple is incredibly tragic, it doesn't mean that another woman has to go ahead with a pregnancy that she doesn't want or maybe even resents. This can be incredibly distressing and traumatic up to a point where it can drive a woman suicidal.
So in order to protect the life of an unborn child we risk the mental and maybe physical health of an adult woman? This can be seen as punishment because in fact that means that the life of a bundle of cells has more value than the health and sanity of a living and breathing human-being that's a functioning part of society (ideally).

And this is where paternal rights come in and I agree that this is an extremely tricky one. De facto the father does not have a right or say what's going to happen. Now we need to take into account that the majority of men wouldn't want to raise a child on their own because the mother already decided she won't do it. But these men are there, I know a case of it personally. And these men depend on the grace of the woman. This is a very sh1tty scenario for all. The father will lose out on his own child. But again the toll the woman takes can be incredibly high.
No matter what, the woman would end up as some kind of baby machine against her will. And because she's the one that is pregnant and takes all the physical and mental side effects, that can vary widely, she's the one who has to decide what's going to happen. There is unfortunately no compromise on that one, as painful as it might be for a father that would be willing to raise a child on his own.
But there are no winners here because that's a sour scenario for everyone involved.

I personally still see it as wrong that a woman should be forced carrying a child against her will. I think the human rights agree with me on that point. This is why it is so difficult to imply the paternal rights for a child that is not born. The 8th at the moment overrules this by saying "Yeah well, your life as a grown woman is as important as the one of a cell blob and in in a scenario of doubt, we side with that cell blob, no matter what's up with you."

This enables so many problems. This also enables substandard pregnancy care and the overruling of consent during the pregnancy and birth. And no matter what, I think, in case of doubt, the adult woman or a living child or your auntie nell is more important than an embryo.

Apologies - I thought this post deserved an acknowledgment and response - it was lost in the legal sniping over definitions of injunctions and X case facts last night.

First - I thank you for taking the time to post out a very thoughtful response to my genuinely held concerns. I thought it best to do you the courtesy of the same. I do understand that many pregnancies suffer a miscarriage in the first trimester - in fact traditionally I heard that in my local culture a pregnancy isn't announced until the 2nd trimester for this very reason. But I would see a distinction between an unplanned miscarriage and an active decision to abort - one is a tragic natural occurrence that the parents may mourn (or like you say, sometimes not even be aware of) and the other is a very conscious decision to end the pregnancy (and state sanctioned).

And I'm sure you realise everyone's position is nuanced - I would find FFA cases to fall into the euthanasia category and actually something I would support - as the unfortunate bundle of cells have no hope of ever developing into a conscious human being. It may seem strange or bizarre to you, but I would value a rapist's foetus above a FFA foetus in terms of what/who can be aborted - for the reasons explained in my previous posts about looking at the effect an abortion would have on the unborn child and where the punishment of the crime lay (on the rapist of course). I am aware that across the wide spectrum of pro-choice/pro-life people different nuanced positions are taken - this is the one I find least hypocritical (to me personally).

And yes - of course the number of 12/24 isn't picked out of thin air - medical professionals must have had their professional input into the discussion and as you say, made the best possible compromise in their eyes. It was at the last discussion I had on the humanities forum that I discovered the interesting historical fact that Christian history (I come from a pretty atheist state) believed that the "soul" entered the baby at the "quickening" - first kick at around 24 weeks. But for me, and trying to make you see it how I see it - the closest comparative feeling it would be akin to the death penalty - while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens (beside the whole non-deterrence value and other arguments against the death penalty). Miscarriage of justice happens and for life/death situations it goes beyond breathlyser tests, arbitrary drinking age limits etc. So hopefully you can see - though perhaps not agree with the lenses I view abortion through.

We have come a long way from State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtala (case from the 1966) where the judge openly stated "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring" - have a read if you want to see the SC's mentality towards (unmarried) men back in the 60s - mother in mental institution wanted to put child up for adoption, unmarried father - who changed his religion for the child - wanted to raise child - but SC sides with mother and states unmarried fathers have no rights to their child...

It really is a sh!tty situation where the mother and father disagree on whether a child is wanted or not - I know some people suggest going the other way - allowing "legal abortions" for fathers who don't want to have anything to do with their unwanted child once born but I wouldn't be in favour of such given my stance on abortion in the first place. Again, while realising that yes - pregnancy isn't a piece of cake and women will certainly be potentially under an inordinate amount of stress it is for me, another balance of rights issue - the balance between up to 24 weeks of potentially serious stress vs the life of the child. That's also why I made reference to medical advances - I would imagine that as further advances in the medical field come along that 24 viability week figure should come down accordingly - until one day perhaps when having a child is almost something that is stork-like and the abortion discussion is moot - no child will be unwanted and all children are genetically designed to be perfect from start to finish etc.

So again, I can understand your concern that women will be merely relegated to "baby brood mares" or something like that, I would ask, is there any duration you would accept or take? What if a foetus can be extracted at 12 weeks and be viable? Would you accept asking women to tolerate 12 weeks of pregnancy, 8 weeks, 2 weeks? I'm cognisant that some may view this as airy-fairy what-ifs - but the purpose is to see if people on the pro-choice side do have an idea of how much inconvenience/stresses a woman could be asked to endure for a pregnancy that is unwanted by her but wanted by the natural father. It is of course open to people to say that "well it's 24 weeks right now and I don't agree with 24, if it comes down in the future I'll cross that bridge when I get there". If the answer is - no I won't tolerate asking the woman to keep an unwanted foetus for any weeks of pregnancy then I'm afraid we will probably have an unbridgeable divide in outlook.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I love that you included this and I wish many more people would. Many people not only miss that common ground, but some even actively ignore it and hide it. Usually behind trolling emotive terms like "pro murder" and "pro abortion" and similar rhetoric.

Abortion is a divisive topic already, we do not need to make it more so by missing the fact that there is a massive lump of common ground between most people on most sides. Pretty much all of us would ideally like to live in a society where no abortion happens. We just differ on our paths towards that ideal.

Yes - and I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance and aren't merely taking a position out of spite for women or with malicious intent. You see it in some of the posts here, this being AH it is to be expected, where people are wondering out loud why do these Church educated morons want to exercise control over a women's body etc.?

I recall reading a bumper sticker in the US - "Let's keep abortion safe, available and minimised" - if it does come in of course that's how I would want it - though I'll continue to champion for paternal rights (married or unmarried) with regards to the decision to abort.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes, but you quoted my response to LirW first, without reading LirW’s post.

I did read the post.
I quoted your post to point out the hilarity of an anti choicer complaining about the use of semantics. I think that may have been lost on you.
Generally when you quote someone and ask a question it is usually at the poster. I think that might have been lost on you as well.

uptherebels

Thirdfox wrote: »

Apologies - I thought this post deserved an acknowledgment and response - it was lost in the legal sniping over definitions of injunctions and X case facts last night.

First - I thank you for taking the time to post out a very thoughtful response to my genuinely held concerns. I thought it best to do you the courtesy of the same. I do understand that many pregnancies suffer a miscarriage in the first trimester - in fact traditionally I heard that in my local culture a pregnancy isn't announced until the 2nd trimester for this very reason. But I would see a distinction between an unplanned miscarriage and an active decision to abort - one is a tragic natural occurrence that the parents may mourn (or like you say, sometimes not even be aware of) and the other is a very conscious decision to end the pregnancy (and state sanctioned).

And I'm sure you realise everyone's position is nuanced - I would find FFA cases to fall into the euthanasia category and actually something I would support - as the unfortunate bundle of cells have no hope of ever developing into a conscious human being. It may seem strange or bizarre to you, but I would value a rapist's foetus above a FFA foetus in terms of what/who can be aborted - for the reasons explained in my previous posts about looking at the effect an abortion would have on the unborn child and where the punishment of the crime lay (on the rapist of course). I am aware that across the wide spectrum of pro-choice/pro-life people different nuanced positions are taken - this is the one I find least hypocritical (to me personally).

And yes - of course the number of 12/24 isn't picked out of thin air - medical professionals must have had their professional input into the discussion and as you say, made the best possible compromise in their eyes. It was at the last discussion I had on the humanities forum that I discovered the interesting historical fact that Christian history (I come from a pretty atheist state) believed that the "soul" entered the baby at the "quickening" - first kick at around 24 weeks. But for me, and trying to make you see it how I see it - the closest comparative feeling it would be akin to the death penalty - while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens (beside the whole non-deterrence value and other arguments against the death penalty). Miscarriage of justice happens and for life/death situations it goes beyond breathlyser tests, arbitrary drinking age limits etc. So hopefully you can see - though perhaps not agree with the lenses I view abortion through.

We have come a long way from State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtala (case from the 1966) where the judge openly stated "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring" - have a read if you want to see the SC's mentality towards (unmarried) men back in the 60s - mother in mental institution wanted to put child up for adoption, unmarried father - who changed his religion for the child - wanted to raise child - but SC sides with mother and states unmarried fathers have no rights to their child...

It really is a sh!tty situation where the mother and father disagree on whether a child is wanted or not - I know some people suggest going the other way - allowing "legal abortions" for fathers who don't want to have anything to do with their unwanted child once born but I wouldn't be in favour of such given my stance on abortion in the first place. Again, while realising that yes - pregnancy isn't a piece of cake and women will certainly be potentially under an inordinate amount of stress it is for me, another balance of rights issue - the balance between up to 24 weeks of potentially serious stress vs the life of the child. That's also why I made reference to medical advances - I would imagine that as further advances in the medical field come along that 24 viability week figure should come down accordingly - until one day perhaps when having a child is almost something that is stork-like and the abortion discussion is moot - no child will be unwanted and all children are genetically designed to be perfect from start to finish etc.

So again, I can understand your concern that women will be merely relegated to "baby brood mares" or something like that, I would ask, is there any duration you would accept or take? What if a foetus can be extracted at 12 weeks and be viable? Would you accept asking women to tolerate 12 weeks of pregnancy, 8 weeks, 2 weeks? I'm cognisant that some may view this as airy-fairy what-ifs - but the purpose is to see if people on the pro-choice side do have an idea of how much inconvenience/stresses a woman could be asked to endure for a pregnancy that is unwanted by her but wanted by the natural father. It is of course open to people to say that "well it's 24 weeks right now and I don't agree with 24, if it comes down in the future I'll cross that bridge when I get there". If the answer is - no I won't tolerate asking the woman to keep an unwanted foetus for any weeks of pregnancy then I'm afraid we will probably have an unbridgeable divide in outlook.



Yes - and I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance and aren't merely taking a position out of spite for women or with malicious intent. You see it in some of the posts here, this being AH it is to be expected, where people are wondering out loud why do these Church educated morons want to exercise control over a women's body etc.?

I recall reading a bumper sticker in the US - "Let's keep abortion safe, available and minimised" - if it does come in of course that's how I would want it - though I'll continue to champion for paternal rights (married or unmarried) with regards to the decision to abort.

Just out of interest what rights are you looking for regarding fathers and abortion? and how do you think they would be enforceable?

Itssoeasy

I've watched some of the committee live and went back and watched more of it. The issue being discussed is a very emotive issue , and that goes without saying but I disliked the way senator Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath acted. I respect their views but the way Ronan Mullen spoke to some of the experts and how both he and Mattie McGrath spoke to the chairperson. Also why are the experts sitting right next to any of the Committee members ?

I don't think when the referendum does come about that the debate will be in any way civil.

Kiwi in IE

splinter65 wrote: »

LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.

I will admit I have an issue with lethal abortion once the point of viability is reached, I still fully defend the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant, but once a foetus is viable, then I do think it has a right to life. Not when it has no chance of survival after birth due to a fatal abnormality though.

Once it can survive outside the woman's body, then for me the game changes. Until then, no rights what so ever, other than what she chooses to afford it. Until it can live outside of her body, it is up to her what becomes of it. And on saying that, women should have the right to choose to discontinue the pregnancy at any stage up to full term.

end of the road

LirW wrote: »

Because the 8th is not only tied to the abortion issue but it heavily impacts the Irish maternity care. Early pregnancy care is pretty much non-existent in the public sector and there is a problem that women are not asked for consent for tests or procedures. They also often don't have a say during labour to what happens to them because a sentence many women hear is "it's dangerous for the baby".

and many of us would be happy to vote for that to change only for the abortion on demand legalisation. if there was a guarantee that abortion on demand wouldn't be legislated for there are a number of us who would be willing to vote yes to repeal to sort the other issues.

LirW wrote: »

Abortions in Ireland are happening, and they won't go away. They are around and there is a blackmarket for medication that you should take under medical supervision. It's about whether or not giving women a safe surrounding to have a termination or not, not only the women that have the money to travel to England.

abortions do happen, however the current status gives some sort of legal protection to, and rights for, the life of the unborn and many of us wish for that to remain to be the case, as we believe the unborn are entitled to rights.

MayoSalmon

uptherebels wrote:

Just out of interest what rights are you looking for regarding fathers and abortion? and how do you think they would be enforceable?

The right for a father not to have to maintain the child if he is in favour of abortion and woman decides to keep it.

He has no rights to stop the abortion in the event that it is repealed therefore the father should have rights to refrain from his current legal obligation to provide for the child.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

Why would you take that I don't?
By the way, the earliest a baby can survive outside of the womb is 24 weeks and even then the chances it might not make it are quite high. There's a reason why 24 is a magic line for women, especially with troublesome pregnancies.
I do not think that I used sensitive terminology. I told about injections about the fetus' abdominal area, the fetus will die. Labour will be induced and the dead baby is born.

I had a look in my birth pass from my first that was issued back home, the baby is referred to as fetus right after birth. Medical term.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/08/health/premature-baby-21-weeks-survivor-profile/index.html

This is just one of many articles. I can post more if you like.
I don’t know where or when you had your baby but when I had mine I was asked at every ante natal visit if I felt baby move, how much movement etc
At every scan I was told baby was developing normally
At Lamaze classes the midwife talked about delivering baby, position of baby etc
Never heard the expression fetus.

JenovaProject

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The right for a father not to have to maintain the child if he is in favour of abortion and woman decides to keep it.

He has no rights to stop the abortion in the event that it is repealed therefore the father should have rights to refrain from his current legal obligation to provide for the child.

That doesnt sound right at all.

Its a sticky situation.Bit of a cop out for lazy would be fathers but also hardship for unexpected dads who had a child they would cherish taken away from them with no say whatsoever.
Fathers rights are a joke,but at the end of the day the child is inside the womans body.
Either way this falls,there would be situations that arise that Id be uncomfortable with.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

It does not really matter who supported it or opposed it, the point of contention was that only religious "mentally impaired slaves" are pro-life, which is an utterly preposterous position to hold.

The fact that every Christian church in Ireland opposed the 8th in 1983 except one tells us that it is not some broadly supported religious or moral principle, it is a narrow sectarian dogma. Tayschren was making the point (rudely, but the Catholic church has earned a lot of that) that many people here have turned away from the Church since the 80s, and their word is no longer law.

The idea that there is some big group of non-religious people who support the 8th is ridiculous. At most, there is a set of ex-Catholics who no longer call themselves religious but have not shaken off that dogma.

And from your reaction, I gather you are one of them.

nice_guy80

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

nozzferrahhtoo

Hoboo wrote: »

Life is a series of actions which run a risk of the well being of me and others, sure, but I don't drive a car safe in the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, it won't be me that gets killed, it will definitely be someone else. IF abortion was not an option, but Euthanasia was, would you choose Euthanasia as an option to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? I very much doubt it.

Well when driving a car it could by you killed, someone else, or both. But the point is that we take risks in pretty much everything we do every day. Eating could choke you, falling down stairs could kill or maim or cripple you, socializing could infect you. And on and on and on.

Sex is only one of the many things that could have negative consequences. And life is about balancing desire with risk, and making informed decisions. And when it goes wrong, it is about mediating between options on how to move forward. And abortion is, and should be, and option given it is a choice made BY a sentient agent to increase their well being, and it is a choice made ABOUT a non-sentient entity that no one on this thread has argued coherently for giving rights to.

tigger123

nice_guy80 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.

But nope; vote, lose, then throw a tantrum.

animaal

I'm undecided on how I'll vote in any upcoming referendum. It's a case of picking the "least worst" option. Whatever the result, I'll be a little sad.

Having said that, I commend the Oireachtas committee. They rightly point out that within the 12-week period, it's going to be impossible to allow abortion in limited circumstances. Any loosening of the law will lead to effective abortion on demand.

Beforehand, I had assumed the recommendation would be for very limited abortion regime, but with the unspoken knowledge that abortion on demand would result.

If all parties to the issue are this up-front, it will add validity to whatever result arises from a referendum.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever. it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.

That does not mean they are not comparable however. I am confused at this point as to whether you know what the word comparable even means. You seem to think it means "the same in every way". It does not. The simple fact is they are not sentient NOW and that makes a point of comparison.

If a rock is grey and a car is grey they are comparable. I can say "They are both things that are grey". The fact that one has many attributes different to the other does not mean they are not comparable.

The pregnant women however is sentient now, and I see no reason to curtail her choices or her well being in favor of a not just slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity.

end of the road wrote: »

a 12 week unborn will be sentient.

Might, not will. You can not see the future. But either way the word WILL implies it is not NOW sentient. So I see no basis for affording it rights, or moral and ethical concern. Nor are you offering one other than declaring "must" a lot. You are appealing to potentials to declare acuals. And not just in general, but specifically in a case that curtails the rights, choices, and well being of an ACTUAL sentient agent. The pregnant woman.

Nothing has the "right to be sentient". You just invented that out of nowhere. If I build a full general Artificial Intelligence tomorrow and it would be sentient when turned on.... and the only thing remaining to attain the state of sentience is for me to flick a switch.... there would be no moral obligation on me to flick it. I could take the whole system apart and scrap it. There is nothing about sentience that gives any potential agent the right to be sentient before it actually is.

Your assertion implies that I would be morally obliged to flick that switch and that pulling the machine apart again and scrapping the whole project would be a moral wrong. This is your nonsense.

HAVING flicked the switch however and brought that sentient machine online, I do believe I would then have moral and ethical obligations towards it's well being.

end of the road wrote: »

we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.

When you are aborting a fetus however there is no "other" to affect. It is a non-sentient construct of biological matter with no rights and source of moral obligation.

nozzferrahhtoo

AnGaelach wrote: »

The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another.

Clearly "life" is not held equal to people in general no. The fact our meat industry ends "life" on a daily basis, as does our farming, paper, medical and other industries..... it is pretty damn clear that people do not hold "life" and "person hood" in equal regard.

Clearly there is some attribute about particular kinds of life that makes that life worthy of moral and ethical concern, that people are witholding from other life. And I argue that the ONLY thing on the table as a candidate for what that attribute is.... is the faculty of consciousness and sentience.

If you think there is another candidate for why we value some life over others, both in and out of our own species, then by all means table it for consideration. But until you do your claim we hold them all equally is pretty empty.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

In order to be “pro choice” you have to convince yourself that an unborn baby is not the young of a human being.

Nope, that is not at all what I find myself required to do to be, and explain my position as, pro-choice. Perhaps a better approach therefore would be to allow us to tell you what we believe..... rather than you presuming to inform us what our own beliefs are?

splinter65 wrote: »

These are not people who are about to face up to the mechanics of an abortion.

What aspect of abortion would you personally consider me not aware of, knowledgeable about, and accepting of? I think you will find me pretty deeply informed about the entire reproductive process and every stage of the mechanics along it's duration.

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die” As opposed to “kills the baby”. Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

Quite the opposite. The anti-choice narrative involves a careful MISuse of words in order to imply things about reality that are not actually true. For example the use of words like "baby" and "murder" are carefully used to imply a sentience and personhood that is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY, missing from the fetus in question.

Not allowing you to misuse terms to distort reality, is not the same as a concealment of reality. We conceal nothing, we just do not let you add your spin to it.

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

When people have abortions by choice, as opposed to medical necessity, they tend almost across the boards (into the 90% range) to do so in or before week 12. By week 16 we are in the 98% range.

So how much relevance exactly, and why, do you think abortions at 20 weeks have really?

splinter65 wrote: »

If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.

Because some terms come loaded with implications and emotions that do not reflect the reality of the situation. When we abort a fetus at 12 - 16 weeks there is nothing there at any level that would imply personhood in a way that words like "Murder" and "baby" do.

This is not just true of abortion but also of miscarriage. When a woman miscarries in the 12-16 weeks area her pain at the event can be exacerbated by narratives that simply do not track with the reality. And quite a lot of benefit can be attained by a careful and gentle separation of those narratives from the reality.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another.

It must be very uncomfortable to think the lives are equal and live in a society that allows abortion on demand for the price of a Ryanair ticket. To think that many of the women you know are murderers and their families are complicit.

But only a very small minority think that way, and they won't save the 8th.

nozzferrahhtoo

Thirdfox wrote: »

while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens

As I said though, in the biological sciences we have literally no reason to even beginning to SUSPECT that there is sentience or consciousness in play until at least week 22. But in fact there is good reason not to expect it until later. There is no one scientific fact to this effect, but a host of corroborating ones. I offer a single example here however:

"K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. "

The vast majority of abortions by choice, like in the 98% area, happen in or before week 16. This is a 6-10 week buffer, which in terms of biological development is so large that even the "0.00001%" you wrote above is simply not going to occur. Some individuals in our species develop faster than others, no denying that. But THAT much faster? That would be somewhat miraculous.

Caution is always healthy, I grant you that. But caution against the machinations of miracle.... is probably over kill?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance

I will have to take your word for it as I have not been able to tease out ANY such arguments from the anti-choice campaigners in over 2 decades of trying.

It started when I set aside an entire day to go and sit and talk with the people who used to hang out outside Central Bank in Dublin with the stalls and pictures of dead fetuses. I was undecided about abortion at that point so wanted to hear their side. And I was happy to sit there for hours, if needs be, to find out what it was.

Alas after 10 minutes of............ "Look at the pictures man!" "Have you seen the pictures?" "The pictures show abortion dude" "the pictures! the pictures!"............. I realized I was not going to get anything "thought long and hard" from that source.

Since then the "arguments" I have heard against abortion can be summarized as:

1) I am emotionally against it, therefore no one should have one.
2) Sentient entities have rights, the fetus will be sentient some day, so lets give it those rights in advance.
3) "Just coz"
4) Abortion is a liberal thing and I hate liberals
5) God puts the soul into the zygote at conception.
6) All life needs to be protected, except the ones I happen to want to eat, paint on, or get between me and my crops.
7) I do not like the reasons some people have for wanting an abortion, therefore no abortion.
8) The term "unborn child" must mean something, therefore I am against abortion (Christopher Hitchens weirdly espoused this one).

If you can find anything in that list that required "long and hard" thought then I must have missed it. If there is anything missing from the list, I have missed that too.

kylith

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

And how many abortions are performed at that point? Less than 1%. And always in tragic circumstances.

The VAST majority of abortions are done by 16 weeks, well before viability, sentience, and the ability to feel pain.

Do you think that it is better for a woman to take medication to induce abortion without medical supervision, and knowing that if the fact that she has done so has come to light, for example if she needed medical attention, she could be charged and spend years in prison? Do you think it is better for women to go to back-street abortionists?

Not allowing women to access abortion encourages both those outcomes, as well as meaning that Irish women who have to get the money and arrange transport and accommodation have later-term abortions than they would if they could remain in Ireland. The illegality of abortion in Ireland pushes women wishing to terminate closer to that 'a 20 week fetus is a baby' window that some people find so abhorrent.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens

If I believed abortion was murder, I too would defend the 8th. In fact, I would be campaigning to make the 8th stronger by passing the 12th, rescinding the 13th and 14th, and bringing in legal changes to reflect that abortion is murder. That means women returning from England after an abortion would be locked up for life.

Fortunately, the number of people who really believe that (as opposed to using it as a slogan) is tiny, probably at the level of people who believe the pope is false and only the Latin Mass is real.

Belfast

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A Zygote will eventually become sentient too if not miscarried or aborted. Is a zygote also of equal value to a born, sentient woman who is carrying it? Can you truthfully say that you think a fused sperm and egg is of the same value as an actual person?

not accord to the 8th amendment.

The unborn right to life is conditional on the right to life of the mother.

also the unborn can be taken out of the jurisdiction for a termination.

those assisting adults being removed for the jurisdiction for termination are not protected by law. like the case below

First person to be prosecuted for assisting suicide in Ireland describes experience on Late Late Show

A carer who became the first person in Ireland prosecuted for assisting suicide has talked about her relationship with her deceased friend and the times she faced questioning from gardaí.
Tallaght woman Gail O’Rorke was charged over the booking of flights to Switzerland between March 10 and April 20, 2011 for MS sufferer Bernadette Forde, 51, to travel to the Dignitas clinic.
Ms Forde, a former employee with Guinness in Dublin, died at her home in Morehampton Mews, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 on June 6, 2011.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/first-person-to-be-prosecuted-for-assisting-suicide-in-ireland-describes-experience-on-late-late-show-775494.html

Zubeneschamali

tigger123 wrote: »

I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.

I like this line: “Despite our efforts, and our reservations expressed from the outset, the committee failed to do its job."

They were not there in good faith, they always planned to reject any outcome bar the Roman Catholic Church line.

Belfast

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well when driving a car it could by you killed, someone else, or both. But the point is that we take risks in pretty much everything we do every day. Eating could choke you, falling down stairs could kill or maim or cripple you, socializing could infect you. And on and on and on.

Sex is only one of the many things that could have negative consequences. And life is about balancing desire with risk, and making informed decisions. And when it goes wrong, it is about mediating between options on how to move forward. And abortion is, and should be, and option given it is a choice made BY a sentient agent to increase their well being, and it is a choice made ABOUT a non-sentient entity that no one on this thread has argued coherently for giving rights to.

if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient.
at what point do humans becomes sentient?
what point are they no longer sentient?

Zubeneschamali

Belfast wrote: »

at what point do humans becomes sentient?
what point are they no longer sentient?

To illustrate the first question, think about the second.

When someone suffers a brain injury, they sometimes end up in a state where they are alive in the sense that their heart is beating, their lungs breath in and out, but there is no higher brain activity at all.

We call that brain death, and commonly turn off life support and cut them up for spare parts.

There in that hospital bed is a unique human life, and we terminate it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Belfast wrote: »

if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient. at what point do humans becomes sentient? what point are they no longer sentient?

We do not have enough knowledge at this time to point to an EXACT time that humans become sentient. In fact from all my reading of the subject I believe there is no one moment it happens.

Rather it is like trying to find the point where red turns into orange on a rainbow. You can point to places you are sure are red, and places you are sure are orange, but you will never find a transition point.

For the purposes of abortion however I do not think we need to know when a fetus BECOMES sentient (Orange), but when it is not (Red). We can not find a transition point, but we CAN point to the rainbow and say "This is red".

And 98%ish of abortions by choice happen WELL within that red zone. A zone where not just most, but everything we know about human consciousness and sentience at this time tells us sentience is simply not there.

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

the Roman Catholic Church line.

So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:

Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma.

You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here.

The Council is made up of:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church,
The Church of Ireland,
The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland,
The LifeLink Network of Churches,
The Lutheran Church in Ireland,
The Methodist Church in Ireland,
The Moravian Church (Irish District),
The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
The Religious Society of Friends,
The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim)
The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Salvation Army (Ireland Division).

[p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma.

You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here.

The Council is made up of:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church,
The Church of Ireland,
The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland,
The LifeLink Network of Churches,
The Lutheran Church in Ireland,
The Methodist Church in Ireland,
The Moravian Church (Irish District),
The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
The Religious Society of Friends,
The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim)
The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Salvation Army (Ireland Division).

[p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]

Reread what I said.