Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Isnt it? We do it all the time. When we swat flies.....

And we're off..........

When the user said "ending a life is no trivial matter" they were quite clearly talking about ending the life of a human being. This is a thread about humans having abortions. He was hardly referencing the killing of wasps or indeed the killing required to fulfill his desire to have some lettuce on a sandwich. You know this, yet every damn thread on the topic you employ the same patronizing approach.

Not many people seem to be willing to ask that question. I have however....

Oh ffs. And he believes it too.

Nah, nozz, nobody seems to be wiling to ask that question. Where would humanity be without you.

A Little Pony

Happily we have the offences against a person act of 1861 to protect us in NI.

gctest50

You can control surgical "robots" from miles away

How would it fare out if the "robot" was in Ireland and the person controlling it in the UK say ?

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

You can control surgical "robots" from miles away

How would it fare out if the "robot" was in Ireland and the person controlling it in the UK say ?

Depends on what it was trying to do I guess.

spookwoman

Tsipras wrote: »

I think everyone knows any contraceptive is not 100% reliable, I've always believed that whenever there's sex there's a chance of pregnancy.

I do have sympathy for any woman who hasn't planned it, and how I vote will depend on the limits (I've no idea what that will be but off the top of my head if it's in the first 2-3 weeks I'd probably vote yes but after that I'd definitely vote no)

Conception usually happens mid cycle then you have to consider not everyone is regular and then you can miss a month so you could be talking 7/8 weeks before having an inkling you may be pregnant.
If its a case of checking for Downs that usually done in the first trimester / 13th week

Tsipras wrote: »

Yeah tis, but if she had sex without contraception then it shouldn't come as a surprise what the result is and you have to own up to your responsibilities

You do know that no contraception is 100% effective.

eviltwin

thee glitz wrote: »

I would deem them to be mentally incapacitated and/or have a very warped moral compass. In short, I couldn't in conscience leave a child in their care.

Unfortunately for you, you will be doing that a lot when you consider the amount of people a child is left in the care of. Unless you plan to ask every teacher, child minder, relative, friend etc what their opinion is.

thee glitz

eviltwin wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, you will be doing that a lot when you consider the amount of people a child is left in the care of. Unless you plan to ask every teacher, child minder, relative, friend etc what their opinion is.

Not really - it was only 5% of the CA that voted for it. I'd expect there's a fairly strong negative correlation between those 5% (if true of the whole population) and childcare professionals anyway. Possibly teachers too.

I'm also lucky in that either me or ms glitz will usually know anyone looking after her. I don't need to worry about friends or family either.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

When the user said "ending a life is no trivial matter" they were quite clearly talking about ending the life of a human being.

I am well aware of that, but I am attempting to hone in on what it is specifically about human life that causes them to think in that way, by calling attention to their trivial flinging in of the word "life" without any qualification.

Because inevitably when I get people to do that, the explanation they offer is a list of things the fetus at 12-16 weeks simply lacks.

In other words in their attempts to use the "Humanity" of the fetus as an argument against abortion they paint themselves into a corner where the definition they use for "Humanity" is specifically one that does not fit the fetus.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh ffs. And he believes it too. Nah, nozz, nobody seems to be wiling to ask that question. Where would humanity be without you.

You do like to make it personal rather than discuss the topic alas. However I stick by what I said that in conversations about abortion it is very hard to pin people down on what exactly it is they are trying to say when they fling words like "Life" and "Human" and "alive" around.

And the reason is that they know, as well as I do, that when they do get pinned down on their definitions they end up defining EXACTLY the list of things that the fetus being aborted lacks.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

You got there end the end - yes, I'm talking about human life.

The feux patronization is not warranted given it is I leading you through that field and not the other way around. So yes, the point is that we DO indeed trivially kill life all the time. But somehow "human life" is special.

So the next field I am urging some introspection on is to THEN have you contemplate what EXACTLY it is about "human life" in particular that makes it special compared to any other. Why does it draw rights and moral and ethical concern from us in a way no other life does.

And when one realizes what criteria it is that causes that.... one THEN realizes that those criteria are precisely what a fetus at 12-16 weeks (when the near totality of abortion by choice happens) lacks.

thee glitz wrote: »

Consciousness and sentience represent a convenient post to hang your coat on

Not really. It is a line in the sand not at all chosen for convenience, but because of the rationale I have offered you multiple times of it being connected inextricable with morality and ethics. A universe without consciousness would, seemingly, also be a universe without morality and ethics. Nothing whatsoever to do with mere convenience and everything to do with it being a central core part of what is actually of concern here.

thee glitz wrote: »

You value consciousness and sentience, but don't respect the right for that to be allowed to develop where it otherwise would. That's the bit I don't get.

What is not to get? It is not a conscious or sentience agent in any form whatsoever. Therefore I do not think it has ANY rights. Let alone the right to become something else. You seem to "not get" why I do not afford it that right but I similarly "do not get" why I would or might.

I have explained at length why and when I think an entity gets rights. So I am unclear why you do not get it. Not agree with it I could at least understand, but I genuinely can not see why you are not getting it.

You on the other hand seem to want it afford it the above right..... just because. You have not offered yet any reasoning or rationale why it might or should have such a right.

thee glitz wrote: »

Not with an attitude like that! Why is that to be thankful for - don't we want to discover all we can, expanding the body of human knowledge? Seriously though - it could be genetic, but we'd still never expect to be able to see it in genes?

Genuinely have no idea what your beef or concern is here. You end with a question mark but I am not seeing what the question is either. Yes, it is possible for something to be genetic without there being a gene specifically for it.

The distinction being that I suspect the "genes for" homosexuality are actually just genes we ALL have already. The is not the same as having a specific gene for something that other people do not have. There is nothing at a genetic level required for homosexuality other than something we all already have.