The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I was pointing out your failed attempt at cheap point scoring. because that is all it was.



you do realise that guy was on the "pro-life" side, right?



as i said earlier that makes you very much an outlier. take a look at a "pro-life" rally and tell me the people attending dont fit into one if not all of those groups.

It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap ) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean.

I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed).

Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

http://www.secularprolife.org

And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/

So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.

I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not an issue to take lightly

Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap ) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean.

I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed).

Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

http://www.secularprolife.org

And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/

So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me.



Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.

I'd argue the dominance of the Catholic church is well and truly over looking at church attendance levels (from what I hear) and the fact that pretty much every Irish person uses contraceptives. Also - transubstantiation...I'd suggest most Catholics are actually Protestants on that stance alone

And I had stated already in my post that none are Irish - I wasn't suggesting that they were but rather pointing to the existence of non-religious opposition to abortion. And actually, if we were to compare religious-ness of a country I'd have thought that the US would be much more religious than Ireland nowadays - both from a "faithful" African-American and Latino community and remaining white Protestants.

ohnonotgmail

Widdershins wrote: »

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy.

Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not.

YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter.

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do??

Widdershins

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

No. You'd have to completely ignore my concerns about their motives to think that. And focus on what suits you. Which of course you did. Predictably.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not.

YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter.



Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do??

Yes, I've done that, thank you. If you've never been impelled to dig deeper based on the disagreeable manner someone displays in their campaigning, then maybe you should learn to take it as a useful clue.

Neither do I.

How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.

NuMarvel

Widdershins wrote: »

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Who specifically are you talking about here? Because that doesn't sound like any of the spokespeople I've seen or heard.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.

Again I did not say it was. You seem to be hearing a lot of what you want to hear, and none of what is actually being said. This is however a public discussion forum and I can reply to anything you post on it. And I was replying to this.......

Widdershins wrote: »

Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.

......... to point out that allowing your position on the rights and wrongs of an important issue to be influenced by someone espousing on the issue being immature is about as "lightly" as one can take it.

Not to mention the selection bias inherent in missing that for every poor personality on one side, you are likely to find it's equal on the other. The Anti Choice campaign is far from short of it's immature loud mouths.

So all I did was point out that I personally tend to vote based solely on the issue itself, rather than the personalities of people speaking about it. Nothing more. Why this bothers you, I can not say.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

there is no comparison between an unborn baby, a rock and a table. to compare them is just waffle, and post filler. all filler no killer as they say.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

her choices are effecting a human being inside her, therefore those choices have to be restricted to uphold the rights of that human being. rights we recognise in this country and have legislated for, as much as is possible.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

where others will be effected, rights will be restricted to insure a level playing field. it is happening all the time. it is how it needs to be, it's how society functions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing has the "right to be sentient". You just invented that out of nowhere.

in this country the unborn baby has a right to be sentient. it has the right to life. removing that right allows for the eventual removal of other rights, we must not allow that to happen.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

when you are aborting a baby there is an other to effect, that unborn baby. it is a would be sentient who has rights in this country. the right to life as much as is practical and the right to be protected as much as is possible. there is no reason for that to change for the most part, given that where extreme circumstances come to be, abortion can be caried out.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

there is no comparison between an unborn baby, a rock and a table. to compare them is just waffle, and post filler. all filler no killer as they say.

Again if two things share an attribute, then they are comparable based on that attribute. This is basic English as to what the word "comparable" even means. The simple fact is they share the attribute of being devoid of consciousness, therefore they are comparable on that basis.

end of the road wrote: »

her choices are effecting a human being inside her

Which is not a PERSON and has no attribute upon which to think of it as one. Calling it a "human being" does not make it one, outside the realms of mere taxonomy. Are morality and ethics to be mediated on mere taxonomy now? That is..... pretty limited.

end of the road wrote: »

where others will be effected

And as I keep saying there is no meaningful "other" to be affected here. You are just imagining there is, supported by little more than appeals to the current legal status quo.

end of the road wrote: »

in this country the unborn baby has a right to be sentient. it has the right to life. removing that right allows for the eventual removal of other rights, we must not allow that to happen.

Slippery slope fallacy. Removal of one rights, solely on the merits of arguments relevant to it, does not automatically open the door to the removal of any other.

end of the road wrote: »

when you are aborting a baby there is an other to effect, that unborn baby.

It is a fetus and there are no "lights on" in terms of humanity or personhood. It is an empty biological life form with no coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern. "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.

ohnonotgmail

Widdershins wrote: »

No. You'd have to completely ignore my concerns about their motives to think that. And focus on what suits you. Which of course you did. Predictably.

their motives are irrelevant. If you are looking for ulterior motives there are plenty on the opposite side. what is relevant is the facts of the situation. something you have relegated to a distant third in your considerations.

Thirdfox

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that - a rock is "not sentient" but unless you imply the atoms in that rock may ultimately end up in a sentient human being (or alien ) -then it can never be described as "would be sentient".

Anyway - I'll continue on the other more moderated thread because it has a better chance of throwing up nuggets of worthwhile discussion points.

Widdershins

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

their motives are irrelevant. If you are looking for ulterior motives there are plenty on the opposite side. what is relevant is the facts of the situation. something you have relegated to a distant third in your considerations.

Excuse me, their motives are highly relevant when their motives are an aim that's diametrically opposed to my own.

The facts of the situation have informed my opinion. The actions and manner of campaigners alerted me to the potential for this to go in a direction I cannot support. Nothing is more relevant to my vote.

''The other side'' is of no interest to me, ultimately this is my firmly held view that neither side could change.

nozzferrahhtoo

Thirdfox wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that - a rock is "not sentient" but unless you imply the atoms in that rock may ultimately end up in a sentient human being (or alien ) -then it can never be described as "would be sentient".

If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.

Widdershins wrote: »

''The other side'' is of no interest to me, ultimately this is my firmly held view that neither side could change.

Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else. I hold many views, some of them very firmly indeed, but that are all amenable to change. And almost always I know what would be required to change them.

For example my pro choice abortion position could be instantly changed by a single coherent argument for affording moral and ethical concern to 12/16 week old fetuses.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.



Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else.

I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable. You criticised for being influenced by behaviour of campaigners a moment ago. When I just felt I needed to know more about their future, publicly unspoken aims if I was to align myself with their present campaign. Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts. Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever. There are people who vote for politicians based on their mugshot appeal alone.

re: your edit. Medical abortion can be performed at 12 weeks.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

IDK if you can do that if they haven't signed an organ donor form.*

Funny how you can't use the organs from a corpse to keep sentient, suffering people alive without their consent, but you can force a sentient, living woman to use her entire body to keep alive an insentient fetus that is incapable of suffering.

*Has that now been changed to the saner 'opt out' system?

it's necessary as we recognise that someone has a right to make the decisian over donating their organs. when it comes to abortion however we are insuring that the right of the unborn to live is protected and upheld where possible. i can see where you are coming from but there is a difference.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

not really. if a proponent of a particular campaign is known to be economical with the truth, then it would be correct to be suspicious of them and their word. in such a case, it would be better to go against what they say.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again if two things share an attribute, then they are comparable based on that attribute. This is basic English as to what the word "comparable" even means. The simple fact is they share the attribute of being devoid of consciousness, therefore they are comparable on that basis.

but are not comparable over all as the unborn will be sentient whereas the others will never be.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is not a PERSON and has no attribute upon which to think of it as one. Calling it a "human being" does not make it one, outside the realms of mere taxonomy. Are morality and ethics to be mediated on mere taxonomy now? That is..... pretty limited.

it will be a person, and will have atributes upon which to think of it as one. calling it a human being is accurate as it is a human being, it's hardly an extra-terresstrial being. taxonomy isn't relevant here, as a factual statement is that a human being is a human being.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I keep saying there is no meaningful "other" to be affected here. You are just imagining there is, supported by little more than appeals to the current legal status quo.

oh but there is a meaningful other to be effected. the unborn human being. this is based upon actual facts. the legal status just gives it the protection it deserves, as much as it can.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a fetus and there are no "lights on" in terms of humanity or personhood. It is an empty biological life form with no coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern. "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.

it is a human being which will become a person, which has a huge coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern and protection. there is nothing of fact to state otherwise. would be sentient means would be sentient, it is very likely to be sentient, so therefore has to have the protection it currently has, to insure it's rights are met as much as is practical. your arguments do not stack up in terms of the facts as a whole.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.



Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else. I hold many views, some of them very firmly indeed, but that are all amenable to change. And almost always I know what would be required to change them.

For example my pro choice abortion position could be instantly changed by a single coherent argument for affording moral and ethical concern to 12/16 week old fetuses.

Where do you draw the line though!
At what age do you consider a foetus as a viable human and why?

Thirdfox

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.

Exactly - the "now" bit is important - but ha this is going back to semantics so I'm not falling back into this trap (my own trap, not yours ).

Needless to say - if you were drafting a legal document you'd be very careful when choosing to use X is becoming Y and not interchangeably using it with X is not Y.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Where do you draw the line though!
At what age do you consider a foetus as a viable human and why?

I think attaining the faculty of consciousness does that.

Not to be rude, but I answered a similar question here, if you will forgive me for using a link rather than repeating myself.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Needless to say - if you were drafting a legal document you'd be very careful when choosing to use X is becoming Y and not interchangeably using it with X is not Y.

Law is not my forte I am by training and practice a scientist, by mix of some training and hobby in the area of philosophy and linguistics, and by hobby a debater in formal and informal capacities.

But linguistically if you tell me X is becoming Y, or X will some day be Y, or X is on the way to Y now............. the general implication in most contexts is "NOT Y"

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your answer to my original post.

I bring back your original post which you linked to.
Its a shady answer and can't be argued with in itself, but for the purposes of a law and perhaps even to salve consciences some date and time must be put on it, like saying, whether you like it or not, here is the end of red and the beginning of orange, even though I can clearly see orange has already started while you can still argue that no, its still red and by law you are right.
If it can't be exacted then it must not be clear to anyone when sentience begins then its basing a law on assumption of an uncertainty.
Therefore asking people to enact an uncertainty might not salve their conscience .
I was a baby once myself, fcuked if I can remember when I became sentient, (i know , i know)maybe if mama had strangled me at birth she would have been sound?

RobertKK

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

A quote from the journal of medical ethics. The reasons for infanticide are the same that are made for abortion as there is a moral equivalence.

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable.

If you say so. I was solely commenting on your claim that a portion of your conclusions is based on viewing certain spokespeople as immature. And I am simply pointing out that I am not similarly moved by anything other than the facts of the issue because:

a) Personality is irrelevant to the rights and wrong of the actual issue and
b) when one removes selection bias one notices that both sides have their equal share of people with such personality issues. So to be influenced by that from ONE side and not the other, is likely a sign that the personality issues are being used retrospectively to justify a position already held.

Widdershins wrote: »

Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts.

Depending on what you exactly mean by "later" we probably agree. I see no reason why we as a society need to offer abortion purely on the basis of choice after 16 weeks. Though if I woke up in an Ireland tomorrow that offered 12 or 20 I would lose sleep over neither.

Widdershins wrote: »

Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever.

You are not sure why someone might be troubled that people decide important issues that affects 1000s of peoples well being, without any thought? Well then I can only say I am EQUALLY not sure how to explain it to you.

But yes ideally I would like to live in a world where people think about their choices rationally, rather than emotively. It is just the way I am. And if I can stimulate thought and/or discussion at any point, I tend to take that option.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

but are not comparable over all as the unborn will be sentient whereas the others will never be.

Again, finding a point where two things are not comparable, does not negate the points where they are. The simple fact is neither of them are sentient NOW. If you have any arguments as to why potential sentience, rather than actual sentience, should mediate moral and ethical concern I am certainly agog to hear them.

end of the road wrote: »

it will be a person, and will have atributes upon which to think of it as one. calling it a human being is accurate as it is a human being, it's hardly an extra-terresstrial being. taxonomy isn't relevant here, as a factual statement is that a human being is a human being.

Yet in different contexts "human being" means different things. What is means to be "human" in taxonomy (which is what a fetus is) differs from what it means to be "Human" or a "person" philosophically (which is what a fetus is NOT).

That you want to jump between contexts while retaining the same meaning is a failure of your own rhetoric, not mine.

end of the road wrote: »

it is a human being which will become a person

Might become, not will. But the fact it will/might means it is not one NOW. Which is basically the crux of my entire point on the matter so thanks for making it for me.

But AGAIN I have to ask, if you have any arguments for affording moral and ethical concern based on potentials rather than actuals I would be happy to hear them made, rather than asserted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Its a shady answer and can't be argued with in itself

Maybe you should see if I can argue it rather than simply declare I can not? If you want to challenge it do. Words are easy to say, but harder to make stick, so if you want to declare it to be "shady" then by all means explain HOW it is rather than merely assert THAT it is.

Because what IS shady, is merely declaring an argument to be shady, without arguing how it actually is.

Edward M wrote: »

some date and time must be put on it

Absolutely. And I have many times in many ways said I would pin my flag to the mast of 16 weeks. But if I woke up in an Ireland tomorrow with 12 or 20 weeks, I would be pretty much just as happy.

The near totality (98% usually) of abortions done purely by choice are done in or before week 16. I think therefore 16 weeks would be ideal. However even at 12 weeks we tend to see uptake of around 92%, even in jurisdictions where 24 weeks are allowed.

Edward M wrote: »

I was a baby once myself, fcuked if I can remember when I became sentient, (i know , i know)maybe if mama had strangled me at birth she would have been sound?

I certainly have the courage of my convictions. If science tomorrow showed that new borns entirely lack the faculty of sentience, I would stick to my guns and declare myself to have zero moral or ethical concern for new borns.

But that is just theory at this point, as no science I know of coherently suggests that. We often question what capacity their faculty for sentience is operating at (as we do with coma patients for example) but that they HAVE one is rarely in question.

Peter Singer, to name but one, does seem to think that when comparing sentience in this way between species that, say, an adult cow should have more moral and ethical concern from us than a new born human. Not sure I buy his thinking on the matter though.

NuMarvel

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable. You criticised for being influenced by behaviour of campaigners a moment ago. When I just felt I needed to know more about their future, publicly unspoken aims if I was to align myself with their present campaign. Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts. Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever. There are people who vote for politicians based on their mugshot appeal alone.

Later term abortions will be a consequence of a no vote. The status quo is that women travel or take other steps, which by its nature means they are accessing abortion services later than they would have if it was available locally. You can see that in the English statistics; the percentage of Irish women having abortions within the first 12 weeks is roughly 8% lower than those of English residents.

A no vote also means Irish women continue to be twice as likely as English residents to have a surgical abortion; last year 78% of Irish women had a surgical abortion, compared to 38% of English women. As far as I know, that's because medical abortions take longer to complete, and time, and the financial cost that goes with that, are commodities most Irish residents don't have.

So looking at the facts alone, a no vote doesn't achieve your aims of reducing the likelihood of later term or surgical abortions.

Conversely, it doesn't follow that a yes vote will lead to more later term abortions. Around the globe, whether access is subject to term limits or not, the trend is that when women can access abortion, they do so early on. Typically, more than 90% of abortions are carried within the first trimester. So even if a yes vote did mean that Ireland would eventually end up legalising later term abortions (and I wouldn't put money on the odds of that happening anytime soon), it doesn't follow that abortions will happen later on.

So it's a simple choice:

A No vote means later term and surgical abortions WILL happen.
A Yes vote means it might happen, but it's not likely.

If someone is basing their criteria on the prospects of later terms abortions, then the choice is clear: vote for repeal. Anyone who would decide to vote no is prioritising other criteria.

Widdershins

NuMarvel wrote: »

Later term abortions will be a consequence of a no vote. The status quo is that women travel or take other steps, which by its nature means they are accessing abortion services later than they would have if it was available locally. You can see that in the English statistics; the percentage of Irish women having abortions within the first 12 weeks is roughly 8% lower than those of English residents.

A no vote also means Irish women continue to be twice as likely as English residents to have a surgical abortion; last year 78% of Irish women had a surgical abortion, compared to 38% of English women. As far as I know, that's because medical abortions take longer to complete, and time, and the financial cost that goes with that, are commodities most Irish residents don't have.

So looking at the facts alone, a no vote doesn't achieve your aims of reducing the likelihood of later term or surgical abortions.

Conversely, it doesn't follow that a yes vote will lead to more later term abortions. Around the globe, whether access is subject to term limits or not, the trend is that when women can access abortion, they do so early on. Typically, more than 90% of abortions are carried within the first trimester. So even if a yes vote did mean that Ireland would eventually end up legalising later term abortions (and I wouldn't put money on the odds of that happening anytime soon), it doesn't follow that abortions will happen later on.

So it's a simple choice:

A No vote means later term and surgical abortions WILL happen.
A Yes vote means it might happen, but it's not likely.

If someone is basing their criteria on the prospects of later terms abortions, then the choice is clear: vote for repeal. Anyone who would decide to vote no is prioritising other criteria.

Interesting comment, thank you.

I haven't followed the campaign lately, has the wording been published? I need to know what I'm voting on before I can really be sure.

It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper.
But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.

freshpopcorn

Can somebody clear something up for me.
Whilst we haven't had any wording for the referendum yet are we basically voting to allow abortion up to 12 with in all circumstances?