Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Zubeneschamali

spacecoyote wrote: »

I hope that you're correct...but I fear a lot of undecided could sit in that "NO, but not willing to say it in public" group.

This was true in the SSM referendum, because there was literally no positive side to voting No, it was simple discrimination against gays with no moral upside even arguable. No wonder nobody wanted to own up to that.

I don't see the same this time. There is a fundamental moral disagreement between Yes and No. I am firmly on the yes side, but I can see that IF the No side were correct in what they believe, keeping the 8th is a moral thing to do.

So unlike the SSM case, people who believe the No sides arguments should be quite convinced that they are right, rather than ashamed to admit it. I don't see why there would be a silent No vote this time when polled.

Also polls which ask the follow up question, which way do undecided folks lean, suggest that they lean Yes just like the general population.

Gbear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And yet, Gbear, the polls remain super solid for the Yes side with less than a week to go. If I had my way, the Yes side would have gone far more aggressive in this campaign. We should be making catholics feel utterly ashamed of their horrendous legacy of mistreatment of babies and women throughout the history of this state.

[...]

You are witnessing the last stand of something that has rotted the core of this state since its inception. And it is being beaten by calmness, rationality and compassion. That's pretty cool when you think about it.

I very much hope you're correct, but I will feel quite let down if the referendum doesn't pass. Let down is the wrong word, because I've done **** all to make it happen either, but you know what I mean. It would feel like an opportunity lost.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't see the same this time. There is a fundamental moral disagreement between Yes and No. I am firmly on the yes side, but I can see that IF the No side were correct in what they believe, keeping the 8th is a moral thing to do.

That position is one I feel hasn't been attacked enough.

I've really liked some of what Michael McDowell has had to say on the subject and he has a good blog post about it here:

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/repeal-into-a-vote-to-endorse.html

This section in particular is important:

The issue that faces us now is simple and stark: Do we want to make or keep it a criminal offence punishable in law for a young woman to use such an abortion pill six weeks into a crisis pregnancy?

If so, do we want to jail such an offender or her friend who supplied her with such a pill? And, again, do we want simply to shame such a girl if discovered and convicted by a fine or a suspended sentence? Do we want such a girl to go without any medical treatment arising from such a termination for fear of prosecution? Do we want to attempt to prevent such pills from being brought into the country? Who is going to prevent that and how? Do we want to strike a doctor off the Medical register for telling a girl abut such a pill or advising her to take it?

These questions must be answered truthfully and honestly by all of us. We may like or dislike, approve or condemn, abortion as a matter of principle or moral conviction. But we must address these questions fair and square.

And if we do not want, and are not prepared, to criminally sanction the use of such pills or to take any of the foregoing steps to punish and sanction those involved in their use, are we simply being asked to turn a blind eye to the emergence of a de facto twilight abortion regime in the State that is too embarrassing to prevent? Are we to allow the 8th Amendment to remain but somehow to wither into desuetude and irrelevance?

Such a scenario, coupled with a constitutional right to travel and a constitutional right to information about these pills (but only on the basis they are taken outside the State), and a ban on terminations which are sought to end fatal foetal abnormalities and continued monitoring for foetal heartbeat as in Savita’s case, and a ban on any termination to preserve the mother’s health (as distinct from her life), seems increasingly indefensible and unsustainable.

As he points out, trying to get people to engage with the argument in the basis of maintaining the integrity of the constitution is probably difficult but it's important, because it undercuts the No position far more strongly than guff like this, that I found on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/8l8yok/young_lads_of_reddit_your_vote_is_really/



Nobody voting No would pay any notice to that, IMO, because it just talks past their issues with the vote and frames it as some sort of feminist talking point.

Particularly with young lads, who I suspect will have the worst turnout, how is that going to resonate?

Maybe, on the other hand, you can make better progress by focusing on how the status quo hasn't worked, about how constitutional law is far too inflexible a vehicle for this kind of morally complicated legislation, and as such the Oireachtas is the place to deal with it, giving the ability to not just have more liberal abortion legislation, but also more restrictive if that is something a party is given a mandate for, which is far from unlikely in a country that has had a pretty conservative party in power in Fine Gael for quite a long time, and few of the parties by weight of vote share are generally in favour of liberal abortion.

Zubeneschamali

Gbear wrote: »

I've really liked some of what Michael McDowell has had to say on the subject and he has a good blog post about it here:

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/repeal-into-a-vote-to-endorse.html

McDowell is making a tangential point - he is saying that IF we don't want to jail women, we should repeal the 8th.

But the obvious logic of the No side agrees with the current law - if fetuseses are tiny people, we SHOULD jail women who have abortions.

The fact that the No side don't follow their logic to this conclusion is a bit of a mystery to me - perhaps the cognitive dissonance of believing both that fetuses are tiny humans and that women are innocent victims of abortion generates the shy No voter who doesn't want to talk about it because they are afraid it all makes no sense?

Gbear

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

McDowell is making a tangential point - he is saying that IF we don't want to jail women, we should repeal the 8th.

But the obvious logic of the No side agrees with the current law - if fetuseses are tiny people, we SHOULD jail women who have abortions.

The fact that the No side don't follow their logic to this conclusion is a bit of a mystery to me - perhaps the cognitive dissonance of believing both that fetuses are tiny humans and that women are innocent victims of abortion generates the shy No voter who doesn't want to talk about it because they are afraid it all makes no sense?

The point is, will people voting No actually be willing to back that up, and if the answer is no then they should be repealing the law.

Some will undoubtedly bury their heads in the sand, while others will be quite happy to send women to jail over it, but I'm sure there's plenty who wouldn't and could see the inescapable problem it presents.

spacecoyote

Didn't pick it up fully, but thought I heard some the "NO" campaign TDs appear to be going full on Trump this morning on the radio.

The "NO" side had already gone halfway there with Kelly Maria Steen-Conway, but now they're going the full illegal voters route, claiming there could be thousands of un-registered foreign nationals somehow getting onto the supplementary register & getting ready to vote.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mattie-mcgrath-claims-people-illegally-registered-to-vote-varadkar-says-to-cool-conspiracy-theories-844530.html

that's the closest link I can find to it. Is this just laying the groundwork for a dispute of the result should it go against them?

I'm sure Mattie has a tonne of proof like he did a few weeks back with his other allegations re: Facebook

Overheal

spacecoyote wrote: »

Didn't pick it up fully, but thought I heard some the "NO" campaign TDs appear to be going full on Trump this morning on the radio.

The "NO" side had already gone halfway there with Kelly Maria Steen-Conway, but now they're going the full illegal voters route, claiming there could be thousands of un-registered foreign nationals somehow getting onto the supplementary register & getting ready to vote.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mattie-mcgrath-claims-people-illegally-registered-to-vote-varadkar-says-to-cool-conspiracy-theories-844530.html

that's the closest link I can find to it. Is this just laying the groundwork for a dispute of the result should it go against them?

Given all the foreign money pumping the No campaign isn’t it more likely to be illegal voters in their favor?

Nody

spacecoyote wrote: »

The "NO" side had already gone halfway there with Kelly Maria Steen-Conway, but now they're going the full illegal voters route, claiming there could be thousands of un-registered foreign nationals somehow getting onto the supplementary register & getting ready to vote.

What I don't get who'd believe that; in US ok it's a main decision who will rule and obviously this group of "illegals" would want as lenient government as possible. I don't think they exist but there's at least a logic to the idea of why they would try to go and vote. But illegals to get on the register to vote about the 8th amendment? Why would they do that? It's not like it will change if they can get health care or not in the first place.

seamus

spacecoyote wrote: »

Is this just laying the groundwork for a dispute of the result should it go against them?

I can guarantee you there are at least five disputes about the outcome of the referendum already written and sitting in folders in the Iona office, waiting to be dropped off at the Supreme Court on Monday.

This is the disinformation campaign, straight from Trump's playbook - the aim is to stir up the "No" voters to come out and counter-vote against a corrupt and cheating Yes campaign.

They've also been trying to recruit "official observers" for polling stations under the pretence that they'll be allowed to challenge any voter for ID. Again, Trump tactics, voter suppression and intimidation.

dublinbuster

seamus wrote: »

I can guarantee you there are at least five disputes about the outcome of the referendum already written and sitting in folders in the Iona office, waiting to be dropped off at the Supreme Court on Monday.

This is the disinformation campaign, straight from Trump's playbook - the aim is to stir up the "No" voters to come out and counter-vote against a corrupt and cheating Yes campaign.

They've also been trying to recruit "official observers" for polling stations under the pretence that they'll be allowed to challenge any voter for ID. Again, Trump tactics, voter suppression and intimidation.

Fear of loosing is seeping of the screen from this post.
Doubt is creeping into the yes campaign
Could it be they realise they are a vocal minority and have no support out side of there social group?
Boards of a Feather flock together, around here is very PRO Abortion, ban hammer drops on those who dont toe the Boards PRO Abortion line.
Why do you believe there are so many undecided votes at this late stage?
Could it be the polls are conducted by the media, which is PRO Abortion and the public dont feel comfortable declaring for the ANTI Abortion side to a PRO Abortion media?
PRO Abortion posters are so convinced they are on the right side, the Good side, if this is true, please explain why there would be any undecided, should it not be the easy option to go with the Good side and declare as such?
Just based on my person observations this week, i see a look of disdain on the faces of people on the street as soon as they walk pass PRO Abortion canvassers in dublin city center.
To finish on a controversial note, a fact that can be seen with your own eyes is a lot of the PRO abortion canvassers around Dublin are clearly flaming homosexuals, i have heard TWICE since monday separate groups say "What has it got to do with gays, wont ever be a problem for them".

I will be having a bet in the bookies for a NO win

Timberrrrrrrr

dublinbuster wrote: »

Fear of loosing is seeping of the screen from this post.
Doubt is creeping into the yes campaign
Could it be they realise they are a vocal minority and have no support out side of there social group?
Boards of a Feather flock together, around here is very PRO Abortion, ban hammer drops on those who dont toe the Boards PRO Abortion line.
Why do you believe there are so many undecided votes at this late stage?
Could it be the polls are conducted by the media, which is PRO Abortion and the public dont feel comfortable declaring for the ANTI Abortion side to a PRO Abortion media?
PRO Abortion posters are so convinced they are on the right side, the Good side, if this is true, please explain why there would be any undecided, should it not be the easy option to go with the Good side and declare as such?
Just based on my person observations this week, i see a look of disdain on the faces of people on the street as soon as they walk pass PRO Abortion canvassers in dublin city center.
To finish on a controversial note, a fact that can be seen with your own eyes is a lot of the PRO abortion canvassers around Dublin are clearly flaming homosexuals, i have heard TWICE since monday separate groups say "What has it got to do with gays, wont ever be a problem for them".

I will be having a bet in the bookies for a NO win

Awwww and you were doing so well up to this point :rolleyes:

Edit: just seen your join date :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Zaph

dublinbuster wrote: »

Fear of loosing is seeping of the screen from this post.
Doubt is creeping into the yes campaign
Could it be they realise they are a vocal minority and have no support out side of there social group?
Boards of a Feather flock together, around here is very PRO Abortion, ban hammer drops on those who dont toe the Boards PRO Abortion line.
Why do you believe there are so many undecided votes at this late stage?
Could it be the polls are conducted by the media, which is PRO Abortion and the public dont feel comfortable declaring for the ANTI Abortion side to a PRO Abortion media?
PRO Abortion posters are so convinced they are on the right side, the Good side, if this is true, please explain why there would be any undecided, should it not be the easy option to go with the Good side and declare as such?
Just based on my person observations this week, i see a look of disdain on the faces of people on the street as soon as they walk pass PRO Abortion canvassers in dublin city center.
To finish on a controversial note, a fact that can be seen with your own eyes is a lot of the PRO abortion canvassers around Dublin are clearly flaming homosexuals, i have heard TWICE since monday separate groups say "What has it got to do with gays, wont ever be a problem for them".

I will be having a bet in the bookies for a NO win

Even ignoring the pro-abortion trolling, that sort of crap has no place on this site. I'm afraid you will be taking no further part in this debate for the next week.

Schumi7

Here's my take -

The abortion debate is essentially a moral and values driven issue, and I don’t find it a particularly complex or difficult one. I’ll preface my contribution by stating my own position. I would, on balance and with a heavy heart, allow the option of abortion for the well known exceptions. But - let’s be very clear - that is not what is proposed to replace the current provision, and I would not allow exceptions to override all else for a general rule.

At the core of this debate is the value of human life itself, and a person’s arbitrary decision that it is inconvenient to have a child does not trump the independent right to life of the unborn. Their level of personal discomfort with having a child has no impact morally on the definition of whether that person is a life or not.

The idea that the definition and value of human life can be dependent on an individual’s emotional state or convenience is one of grave significance. Either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t and anytime you draw any line other than the conception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to adults. Bluntly, the suggestion that human beings have the subjective capacity to define as life that which they wish to preserve is a dangerous one with consequences for society as a whole.

Such statements can still appear abstract to some. Let me present the following case:

I have come to regard the liberalisation of abortion laws as thee most significant act in rubber stamping the decline of a nation as we know it, or knew it. It's my strong contention that when a society deviates from the established view regarding the sanctity of life, or, in more secular terms, a simple objective definition to life, then society will also deviate from other established values as a logical consequence. The implication is not only glaringly obvious but is borne out by the demographic statistics for other nations.

Take our nearest neighbour as an example. In Britain the marriage rate has tumbled and the divorce rate has risen since the late ‘60s and early '70s. Today, the percentage of marriages that end in divorce stands at 42%. The number of children born out of marriage has dramatically increased, to a point where it is nearly level pegging with its wedded counterpoint. Over 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion. This is despite the reasons for the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act running along similar lines to those espoused for the repeal of the 8th amendment. These statistics find parallel across the ‘Western World’ with the average divorce rate in the EU currently standing at 44%, and America at just over 50%.

However, Ireland’s divorce rate is still remarkably low at 12-13%, despite almost 25 years since the divorce referendum. It is also of interest to note that Ireland also has the highest natural birth rate in the EU; the only country which comes close to replenishing it’s own population (the necessary 2.1 figure) without the need for immigration.

Why the difference? As religion and faith in general have declined across the Western World, the current ‘rights’ based progressive ethos has emerged to try and fill the gap. It has helped to bring many undoubted advancements, the emancipation of gay people being the most obvious one. However, this ethos has a very serious flaw. Together with the economic and legal changes that have run alongside and been spurred by it, it has fostered a culture of entitlement. In other words, an increasing mentality of self-involvement, self-interest and narcissism. This is reflected in the decline of the family and the collapse of the birth rate. The other Western nations have been in decline, anthropologically speaking, for some time now.

The decline of the family heralds the growth of the state. The ever expanding state brings ever increasing debt. The low birth rate together with increasing life expectancy greatly enhances the need for immigration; and the demographic & cultural change that results from that leads to the kind of stark political changes we have seen across Europe and America in recent times. These societies lack the same cohesion they once had and have become more fractured. It's for this reason that I'd counsel against this glee, for want of a better word, regarding the decline of the Catholic church and, in more general terms, the decline of religion and faith. As Edmund Burke said - “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership . . . not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

It’s almost painful to see how some people are so willing to throw out the best of what has gone before. I hate the smug and glib inferences that the morality and values of our parents, grandparents and beyond, was somehow inferior in comparison to that of the current 'enlightened', 'more compassionate' and ‘modern’ populace. This is the same Enlightened generation that is increasingly content to subcontract the care of children, the elderly, the vulnerable and the dependent out to others. To have seen the effects of large scale immigration elsewhere, where immigrants allow the wealthy and middle classes amongst the ‘natives’ to live in the style they have grown accustomed to, whilst those ‘natives’ at the bottom who aren’t so entitled and are willing to do the more menial work can no longer compete with the cheaper imported labour. Then of course, the demographics start to change, the culture starts to change, and their country doesn’t feel like it used to anymore and the immigrants, the majority of whom only want to better their own lives and that of their family, suddenly become unwelcome.

But hey….we’re ‘modern’!

The central point is that morality and value systems are very important and there are consequences for society when they change. The insidious side of the rights based ethos is demonstrated best by the abortion debate. We live in an age where all forms of contraceptives, from condoms to the morning after pill, are widely and virtually freely available and sex education is, to the best of my knowledge, mandatory in schools. Despite this, it is claimed that abortion is an urgent requirement. With such facilities and such information flow so readily available, can the “right to choose” not be properly located in the choice to use effective contraception; or in adoption; or, and I don’t mean to be prudish, in abstinence?

Indeed it is proposed by many that abortion is akin to a human right. This suggestion is delusional and dangerously absurd. For abortion to be a human right, one has to disengage the most fundamental human right of all – the right to life – and to dehumanise the defenceless human in utero in preference to the freedom of choice of the parent or parents. Moreover, if the most important of all the human rights is so easily upended, what the fate of the subsequent human rights, so hard-earned over the last 70 years.

It is not rights that make the character, it’s responsibility, and one of the hallmarks of a cohesive society is the correct balance between human rights and human responsibilities. The granting of a right to abort the unborn, outside of the exceptions, represents a complete negation of responsibility. While it may be argued that this assertion is too judgemental in any individual circumstances, the removal of the right to life of the unborn to enable others to exercise a lesser right of choice, will also remove society’s obligations of responsibility.

Therefore, we now stand atop the slippery slope. The slope other nations have already travelled down!

nozzferrahhtoo

Schumi7 wrote: »

At the core of this debate is the value of human life itself

Agreed. But to phrase it differently I think at the core of the debate is also what it is specifically about "Human Life" we can, and should, value. And why.

Schumi7 wrote: »

Their level of personal discomfort with having a child has no impact morally on the definition of whether that person is a life or not.

Here I fear you have stated the concerns of the issue EXACTLY backwards. The question is not at all "whether the person is a life or not". Rather the question is "Whether the life is a person or not".

Biologically it is a life, and no one I have seen yet has questioned that at all. The question is whether this thing we all acknowledge as "life" is a person or not. And if it is not, then the question is why we would, should, or even could afford it the concerns that we would afford a person.

Schumi7 wrote: »

Either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t and anytime you draw any line other than the conception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to adults.

Except that is blatantly and demonstrably not true given people have "drawn lines" that very much distinguish between a 10/12/16 week old fetus, and everything else that comes after it, which in no way is challenged by the concept of, definition of, or exists of, "Adults".

Schumi7 wrote: »

Indeed it is proposed by many that abortion is akin to a human right. This suggestion is delusional and dangerously absurd.

I would phrase the "suggestion" differently. I would say that our moral and ethical concern has to be towards the well being of sentient creatures. And if we wish to curtail the rights, choices and well-being of sentient creatures at any time, then we must justify that move. And curtailing them in deference to a biological entity that is itself not AT ALL a sentient agent, even more so..........

Schumi7 wrote: »

For abortion to be a human right, one has to disengage the most fundamental human right of all – the right to life – and to dehumanise the defenceless human in utero in preference to the freedom of choice of the parent or parents.

..........so more accurately therefore if you do NOT want abortion to be a human right, and want to curtail the bodily rights of pregnant people....... you have to establish that the fetus being aborted at, say, 10 weeks gestation even has or SHOULD have a "right to life" in the first place. In other words what you here pretend is the "Dehumanization" of the fetus is actually a call to have you justify having "Humanized" it in the first place before it's due.

Schumi7 wrote: »

Moreover, if the most important of all the human rights is so easily upended, what the fate of the subsequent human rights, so hard-earned over the last 70 years.

So, slippery slope scaremongering then?

Schumi7 wrote: »

It is not rights that make the character, it’s responsibility, and one of the hallmarks of a cohesive society is the correct balance between human rights and human responsibilities. The granting of a right to abort the unborn, outside of the exceptions, represents a complete negation of responsibility.

Only if you define "responsibility" as meaning "make the choices I myself would make in the same situation as you". Which is clearly not what "responsibility" means. Rather what it means to "take responsibility" is to evaluate the situation you find yourself in, evaluate all your options and their implications, and then make the right choice for YOU and YOUR situation.

So when you bemoan the option of abortion being included in such a list of options........ it appears you do not actually, for all your talk, want people to "take responsibility". Rather YOU want to take it on THEIR behalf.

Schumi7 wrote: »

While it may be argued that this assertion is too judgemental in any individual circumstances, the removal of the right to life of the unborn to enable others to exercise a lesser right of choice, will also remove society’s obligations of responsibility.

Except no it won't. Rather it will force us to clarify what our responsibilities actually are, where they lie, and what we should do about them. And more importantly it will force us to clarify the "Why" behind every one of those things. And I think this move in human moral and ethical philosophy, and concept of rights, is LONG over due. Especially as every progressing technology may lead us to a point where our outdated and archaic positions on such things are going to meet with the hammer blows of modernity, and have demands made of them that they currently are not ready for.

Charmeleon

I suspect a lot of the moral confusion over this flows from the unscientific social constructionist view and somewhat from behaviorism. The idea being the human fetus and child is a ‘blank’ from which experiences, culture and socialisation carve out a person. One fetus dies, the next is a direct, identical (in the qualities that ‘matter’) replacement.

We know this is not true, each new conception produces an individual who is unique in genetics and combination of traits. Experience will revise and fine tune these traits but the result is still unique in human history. The individual is the smallest unit of humanity, literally meaning indivisible into further parts. If your amputated arm was in a room you couldn’t say ‘John is here’. A fetus is, by any definition, an individual, the same basic unit of unique humanity as the rest of us. Therefore eligible for similar human rights to us all.

nozzferrahhtoo

But "individuality" does not alone anchor or ground those concepts. A cow is also an individual. It does not get the same rights. And what about identical twins?

No, it seems "individuality" is a measure by which to identify other concepts. Just like "borders" do not identify the concept of ownership, but merely measure what IS owned.

I would also be wary about phrases like "by any definition, an individual". Because many people use that word with the implication of personhood "The individual's preferences" for example. And whatever else the fetus at 10 weeks is, it is not seemingly a "person".

Overheal

At that early stage of development a fetus is by few means an individual. It is parasitic with in the womb and incapable of leaving it, it doesn’t even have brainwaves yet. While it will gestate into a sovereign person that is not the same thing as already being one.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But "individuality" does not alone anchor or ground those concepts. A cow is also an individual. It does not get the same rights. And what about identical twins?

No, it seems "individuality" is a measure by which to identify other concepts. Just like "borders" do not identify the concept of ownership, but merely measure what IS owned.

I would also be wary about phrases like "by any definition, an individual". Because many people use that word with the implication of personhood "The individual's preferences" for example. And whatever else the fetus at 10 weeks is, it is not seemingly a "person".

Cows are not the basic unit of humanity, human rights therefore do not apply.

Neither identical twin can be subdivided into further people, they are two individuals. We also know that gene expression is not always identical even though identical twins are ‘clones’ in their inherited genetic code.

nozzferrahhtoo

But that is my point exactly. You are begging the question. You are using measures of a concept (individuality, biologically human) as if they are the definition of the concept itself. But they are not, just like "borders" define whether is owned, but not the concept of ownership itself.

Charmeleon

Overheal wrote: »

At that early stage of development a fetus is by few means an individual. It is parasitic with in the womb and incapable of leaving it, it doesn’t even have brainwaves yet. While it will gestate into a sovereign person that is not the same thing as already being one.

Making up arbitrary tests of whether a human individual (or group) is as ‘human’ as us is inherently dangerous and convenient, when we get to choose the parameters.

When people go through IVF, would people accept a ‘lucky dip’ from a communal pool of embryos? Only the most desperate would not seek their own fertilised embryos if they are available.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that is my point exactly. You are begging the question. You are using measures of a concept (individuality, biologically human) as if they are the definition of the concept itself. But they are not, just like "borders" define whether is owned, but not the concept of ownership itself.

It’s not a fluid concept, you are only confusing yourself. An individual is the basic unit of humanity, the difference between one fetus and another in the same womb is not like a ‘border’ we can draw anywhere we like. Weird thinking.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

Making up arbitrary tests of whether a human individual (or group) is as ‘human’ as us is inherently dangerous and convenient, when we get to choose the parameters.

Two issues there.

The first is who the hell else will choose those parameters? We as a species HAVE to do it. No one else is going to come along and do it for us, unless you become one of those people who like to pretend there is some "god" entity to do it.

The second is I do not see the phrase "inherently dangerous" as being anything but a) scare mongering and blatantly obvious. When we are doing something that has implications for morality and ethics it of course involves risk. So what? That just tells us to take care while we do it. Nothing more. It certainly would not inform us we should not be doing it at all.

Charmeleon wrote: »

It’s not a fluid concept, you are only confusing yourself. An individual is the basic unit of humanity, the difference between one fetus and another in the same womb is not like a ‘border’ we can draw anywhere we like. Weird thinking.

You not understanding my point does not make me the confused one. You are asserting your own units, based on nothing, and pushing them forward as if they are definitive facts. Weird thinking.

The point I am making is there is nothing particularly about being a "distinct individual", or having "Unique DNA" that tells us an entity has worth, or rights, or should cause us moral and ethical concern.

It is OTHER factors that define that, and it is then being a "distinct individual" that is used as a measure of how and when and where and why to apply those concepts.

Just like, as I said, the concept of "borders" does not define what ownership is, means, or is for. Other things define those concepts and we then use things like "borders" to apply those concepts.

Again, you are using the measures of application of a concept as if they are the concept themselves. Weird thinking.

sydthebeat

The vast vast majority of paid advertising I've seen in this campaign has come from the NO side.... Whereas the vast vast majority of organic campaigning has been from the YES side.

Which tells me that ordinary people are quite happy to announce their support of repeal openly in media like Facebook, whereas the no sides 'ordinary people' are afraid to voice their viewpoint for fear of having to argue it, afraid to face calls to explain septic tanks in tuam, or the laundries, or the business of selling kids to America etc.

This will be close but I hope to God it passes and women are given back control of their own bodies.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Two issues there.

The first is who the hell else will choose those parameters? We as a species HAVE to do it. No one else is going to come along and do it for us, unless you become one of those people who like to pretend there is some "god" entity to do it.

The second is I do not see the phrase "inherently dangerous" as being anything but a) scare mongering and blatantly obvious. When we are doing something that has implications for morality and ethics it of course involves risk. So what? That just tells us to take care while we do it. Nothing more. It certainly would not inform us we should not be doing it at all.



You not understanding my point does not make me the confused one. You are asserting your own units, based on nothing, and pushing them forward as if they are definitive facts. Weird thinking.

The point I am making is there is nothing particularly about being a "distinct individual", or having "Unique DNA" that tells us an entity has worth, or rights, or should cause us moral and ethical concern.

It is OTHER factors that define that, and it is then being a "distinct individual" that is used as a measure of how and when and where and why to apply those concepts.

Just like, as I said, the concept of "borders" does not define what ownership is, means, or is for. Other things define those concepts and we then use things like "borders" to apply those concepts.

Again, you are using the thigh measures of application of a concept as if they are the concept themselves. Weird thinking.

While I continue to ponder whether this is a bowl mostly of corn or mostly of flakes, let me ask you to answer this.

Say your parents conceived and then within a couple of days (or minutes if you prefer) your embryo was removed for some kind of testing. The lab lose the embryo and decide to implant one from the shelf. Is the individual or person your parents raise the same individual they conceived, if so why? At what point does any old embryo become the individual you are?

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

At what point does any old embryo become the individual you are?

Perfectly easy question to answer without the rhetorical situation that was a prelude to it.

I think words like "individual" and "person" and so forth come into play the moment the fetus transitions from being a mere biological entity to possessing the faculty of sentience.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perfectly easy question to answer without the rhetorical situation that was a prelude to it.

I think words like "individual" and "person" and so forth come into play the moment the fetus transitions from being a mere biological entity to possessing the faculty of sentience.

So embryos are all identical ‘blanks’ that will eventually become distinct individuals. Interesting theory.

PhoenixParker

Charmeleon wrote: »

Making up arbitrary tests of whether a human individual (or group) is as ‘human’ as us is inherently dangerous and convenient, when we get to choose the parameters.

When people go through IVF, would people accept a ‘lucky dip’ from a communal pool of embryos? Only the most desperate would not seek their own fertilised embryos if they are available.

We don't need arbitrary tests or rules.
There are guidelines laid out all over the place and the point at which a human is recognised as such is laid out in numerous legal standards and international laws.

Article 1 of the universal declaration of human rights:
All human beings are born free and equal


Article 2 of the Irish constitution:
It is the entitlement and forthright of ever person born on the island of Ireland, which includes it's islands and seas to be part of the Irish Nation.

When you're born and take your first breath birth cert is issued. You are accorded citizenship in accordance with the law. You require a passport to travel. Child benefit is issued.

After 24 weeks gestation or 500gr stillbirths are certified and some rights accorded to the parents.

The only exception to all of this is the 8th amendment.

Charmeleon

PhoenixParker wrote: »

We don't need arbitrary tests or rules.
There are guidelines laid out all over the place and the point at which a human is recognised as such is laid out in numerous legal standards and international laws.

Article 1 of the universal declaration of human rights:
All human beings are born free and equal


Article 2 of the Irish constitution:
It is the entitlement and forthright of ever person born on the island of Ireland, which includes it's islands and seas to be part of the Irish Nation.

When you're born and take your first breath birth cert is issued. You are accorded citizenship in accordance with the law. You require a passport to travel. Child benefit is issued.

After 24 weeks gestation or 500gr stillbirths are certified and some rights accorded to the parents.

The only exception to all of this is the 8th amendment.

Laws are not scientific definitions, they are customs and norms laid down enforced by the state or international entities. They can be influenced by scientific findings but are mostly compromises and consensus views. Social facts, not scientific facts.

They are based on the unusual situation in which the location of your conception cannot be relied upon and the birth is the only reliably witnessed bond to a particular state.

Edit: the 8th amendment does’t define anything, it says it acknowledges a right that exists in a fundemental way beyond the jurisdiction of laws and the constituition itself, the right of the unborn to live.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

So embryos are all identical ‘blanks’ that will eventually become distinct individuals. Interesting theory.

I do not recall calling them "identical". So while you might find it an interesting theory, it is not MY theory you are finding interesting.

Rather my position acknowledges the existence of individual differences, even at times uniqueness, but is questioning why such a thing is relevant or interesting or worthy of moral and ethical concern at all.

Even if human beings were all 100% identical genetic clones of each other, I would see that as having no implications on their individual rights or the level of moral and ethical concern we should show each individual.

Apparently you do, it would seem. The basis of that is not clear.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not recall calling them "identical". So while you might find it an interesting theory, it is not MY theory you are finding interesting.

Rather my position acknowledges the existence of individual differences, even at times uniqueness, but is questioning why such a thing is relevant or interesting or worthy of moral and ethical concern at all.

Even if human beings were all 100% identical genetic clones of each other, I would see that as having no implications on their individual rights or the level of moral and ethical concern we should show each individual.

Apparently you do, it would seem. The basis of that is not clear.

Yes, of course I do. When someone kills 15 individuals it is morally worse than killing 1. We seek to protect individuals as well as humanity as a whole. We recognise self determination and rights are founded in the individual, likewise culpability and punishment is based on identifying the responsible individual and not some random individual.

Do you really believe the individual is of no moral concern? I find that frightening.