8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

spookwoman

Not a fan of regina but she has made some good points ref love both not showing much love.

Bannasidhe

Joan McCarthy of UCC considers the 12 weeks limit.
An interesting read.

Why twelve weeks is a relevant and reasonable timeline to allow access to safe and regulated abortion services on request

There is a continuous route of development between the movement of human sperm and egg, fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, foetus and a born child. This prompts the question: At what point in the development of early human life should we assign significance? Sperm or egg? Fertilized egg? Foetus? Born child?

The question ‘When is early human life significant?’ is not a single question at all but several:
When does human life begin? (a biological question);
When is pregnancy established? (a medical question);
When is individual identity established? (a metaphysical question);
When does human life confer duties and responsibilities? (a moral question);
When does human life acquire rights e.g. to protection, autonomy etc. (a legal question).

Scientists, philosophers, theologians, clinicians and the general public differ in their answers to these questions and the ways in which these questions relate to one another. These differences are based on different world-views about the human species, human life and morality. These differences are unlikely to be settled - ever.

Some assign significance at fertilization when the possibility of a genetically unique human being is initiated (the scientific question) and they conclude, on this basis, that the fertilized egg/embryo/foetus has the same fundamental human rights as born human beings (the moral and legal questions).

However, this claim that the mere existence of human biological life is profoundly significant, no matter what its form or stage of development is flawed.

Firstly, it relies on the notion that because there is a continuity between one thing A and another thing B, that A is the equivalent of B. This does not follow. For example, there are continuous and subtle changes between the light at noon and the darkness at midnight but yet midnight is not as bright as noon and we should not treat it as if it were. Similarly, the development from an acorn to an oak tree is equally continuous but it does not mean that acorns are oak trees.

Secondly, whether the fertilized egg or embryo or foetus has significant moral value or not, it is not free-floating. The fact that it develops within a woman’s body and is intimately connected to her is morally significant because her life, health and well-being are also of profound value. To insist, for example, that embryos and foetuses have a right to life that is equal to the right to life of the pregnant woman, demands more of pregnant women than non-pregnant people. We might all agree that a born child has a right to life, but it does not follow that this right to life means that he or she has the right to their mother’s or father’s bone marrow, kidney or even blood transfusion if the child needed any of these to survive. We might think it morally praiseworthy of a parent to undergo surgery in order to try and ensure the survival of their child, but the state does not legally compel them to do so. It follows that we cannot expect a pregnant woman or girl to undertake the special burden of continuing a pregnancy and enduring childbirth at the risk to her life, health, or well-being in the interests of a very underdeveloped embryo or foetus when we demand far less of parents in relation to born children.

Conclusion
Providing access to safe and regulated abortion services on request up to twelve weeks is a relevant and reasonable legal response to the challenge of balancing the needs of women and girls with crisis pregnancies and the different perspectives on the moral signficance of the fertilized egg/embryo/foetus. It is relevant because 12 weeks signifies when a clinical pregnancy is established (40-60% of fertilized eggs/embryos/foetuses are naturally lost up to 12 weeks). It is also relevant because it allows for diagnosis of pregnancy, consideration of any health risks or other commitments, and responsibilities, planning work or parental leave, and organising access to services. This is especially relevant in cases of rape and incest because it means that no special procedures are required (the woman or girl does not have to endure the additional trauma of having to prove rape or incest in order to terminate her pregnancy).

Providing access to abortion services up to 12 weeks is also reasonable because it strikes a balance in relation to the deeply-felt concerns of those who hold different moral views: it recognizes the right of a pregnant woman to have a legal abortion in the early stages of pregnancy but limits access to abortion thereafter.

It is also the case that, whatever limits the legislation sets, we can trust women to make the morally right decision at the right time. Evidence from the UK and around the world confirms that women who access legal abortion services do so at the earliest opportunity. For example, 81% of terminations in England and Wales are performed under 10 weeks gestation (when the embryo/foetus is not sentient and about the size of a kidney bean or a grape).

Voting Yes to repeal the eighth amendment and introducing the kind of legislation that is envisaged by the government Joint Committee means that we can agree to disagree. It is a vote in favour of values such as fairness, justice, human rights, solidarity, compassion, inclusiveness, moderation, tolerance.

Dr. Joan McCarthy
Lecturer, Healthcare Ethics
School of Nursing and Midwifery
University College Cork

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course you are, we are living in a democracy are we not? In this particular referendum, I am being asked a question and consequently I shall reply with an answer. For every woman who has an abortion, there is at least one child who is aborted so the aborted children are the majority. Even if they were not, I would have to factor in the fact that the unborn don`t get a vote.

Also, if you do not believe "Thou shalt not kill," - how do you decide who lives and who dies. What if someone else decides the likes of you or I should die, that would not be very nice would it?

Yes, a democracy.
Not a country ran by religion.
We live by the laws of the country, not a religion.

gmisk

Bridge93 wrote: »

Skybet have it at 1/10 and Ladbrokes 1/7 as of this morning for a yes vote. The latest polls really shifted the price

Yeah it was around 1/5 couple of days ago.
No is now way out at 4/1.

But hey bookies get it wrong sometimes so gotta get out and vote that's the only thing that counts

Itssoeasy

Just to have it recorded there were both no and yes campaigners handing out leaflets at the cork vs Clare match in cork today. I mean why ? I go to sporting events to not think about this referendum.

Dressing gown

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course you are, we are living in a democracy are we not? In this particular referendum, I am being asked a question and consequently I shall reply with an answer. For every woman who has an abortion, there is at least one child who is aborted so the aborted children are the majority. Even if they were not, I would have to factor in the fact that the unborn don`t get a vote.

Also, if you do not believe "Thou shalt not kill," - how do you decide who lives and who dies. What if someone else decides the likes of you or I should die, that would not be very nice would it?

When I was growing up the teaching was that a baby that had not been christened was sent to limbo. The church did not recognise its soul. This terrified me as a child and I lost sleep over new cousins and siblings until they were baptised. I had a family member that nearly died as a baby and I was more worried about them not going to heaven and being so innocent than whether they lived or died. Now, according to the church life matters and is sacred from conception. Feels like a massive u-turn to me. Has no one else considered this as hypocrisy? I would be really interested if anyone is educated on this one.

spookwoman

Red C 56% yes
27% no
14% don't know

asked to predict
56% yes
44% against

It wasnt me123

Fact checking by Gavin Reilly

Claim by both sides

yes
countries where abortion is more legally available the rate goes down - proven for some countries but not for the whole world

no
Dr Andrew ..... said that in Norway for every 1 birth there are 3 abortions
the reality is that it is 1 in 9

Polls
Healthy lead for Yes side

I'm impressed that there wasn't too much misinformation though Breda O'Brien was a bit shouty and talked over others

freshpopcorn

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Just to have it recorded there were both no and yes campaigners handing out leaflets at the cork vs Clare match in cork today. I mean why ? I go to sporting events to not think about this referendum.

This became a thing lately and I find people don't like it!

Same with this honking the horn thing. They were doing it this evening in my local town whilst standing on the road and getting in the way!

RabbleRouser2k

spookwoman wrote: »

Red C 56% yes
27% no
14% don't know

asked to predict
56% yes
44% against

I know people will see this as a clear lead-but I don't trust political polls.

Gives me hope tho.

freshpopcorn

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I know people will see this as a clear lead-but I don't trust political polls.

Gives me hope tho.

I did the RedC poll a good while before these debates started for anybody who's interested!

pleas advice

who factchecks the fact checkers?

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Dr Andrew ..... said that in Norway for every [3 births there is 1 abortion]
the reality is that it is 1 in 9

edited above, to i presume what was meant

its actually about 1 in 6

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-norway.html

It wasnt me123

gmisk wrote: »

Yeah it was around 1/5 couple of days ago.
No is now way out at 4/1.

Excuse my ignorance, what do the odds mean? Does the 1/5 mean that for every 1 no vote there will be 5 yes votes

freshpopcorn

pleas advice wrote: »

who factchecks the fact checkers?

edited above, to i presume what was meant

its actually about 1 in 6

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-norway.html

I tried to fact check one of these claims a few weeks ago and ended up with a few answers!

pleas advice

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, what do the odds mean? Does the 1/5 mean that for every 1 no vote there will be 5 yes votes

no, it just means you'd have to put a fiver on to win a euro. Its a gauge of what side people are betting on winning

gmisk

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, what do the odds mean? Does the 1/5 mean that for every 1 no vote there will be 5 yes votes

Sorry no these are betting odds.
Just to be clear I would never bet on something so serious.

It wasnt me123

pleas advice wrote: »

who factchecks the fact checkers?

edited above, to i presume what was meant

its actually about 1 in 6

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-norway.html

No sure what you are linking to, I just typed what I heard.

Dr Andrew .... said 1 in 3
Gavin Reilly fact checked it to 1 in 9 - but he explained how that figure was arrived at - sorry I couldn't type as quick as they were talking. I'm not sure where he obtained his info - I think he said where I just couldn't get it all down. It will be on the IPlayer tomorrow no doubt.

gmisk

pleas advice wrote: »

no, it just means you'd have to put a fiver on to win a euro. Its a gauge of what side people are betting on winning

It is and it isn't.
If you look at odds checker there are slightly more bets going on the no side but its narrowed I think. Its more based around polls etc.

It basically means if you put 5 euro on yes to win you would get 6 euro back if it does, if you put 5 euro on no and it wins you would get back 25 euro.

Like I said before I would never bet on something so serious but it's an interesting possible indicator.

Water John

Think he said 2 in 9.

spookwoman

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

No sure what you are linking to, I just typed what I heard.

Dr Andrew .... said 1 in 3
Gavin Reilly fact checked it to 1 in 9 - but he explained how that figure was arrived at - sorry I couldn't type as quick as they were talking. I'm not sure where he obtained his info - I think he said where I just couldn't get it all down. It will be on the IPlayer tomorrow no doubt.

maybe here https://www.fhi.no/en/hn/statistics/birth-and-pregnancy-statistics/induced-abortion-in-norway/

It wasnt me123

Sorry, I can't remember if it was 1 in 9, 2 in 9 or 1 in 6

Whatever it was, it wasn't 1 in 3

apologies for not getting the details correct

Pherekydes

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, what do the odds mean? Does the 1/5 mean that for every 1 no vote there will be 5 yes votes

It means that approximately 83% of the money being wagered is on the Yes vote.

Kurtosis

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I did the RedC poll a good while before these debates started for anybody who's interested!

There was a previous Red C poll conducted between the 19th and 25th of April.

This one was done from May 10th-16th.

freshpopcorn

Kurtosis wrote: »

There was a previous Red C poll conducted between the 19th and 25th of April.

I did one earlier in May but I did it before the Claire Byrne debate. Which some are claiming changed minds!

gmisk

Pherekydes wrote: »

It means that approximately 83% of the money being wagered is on the Yes vote.

I don't think it does.
As I said previously odds checker is showing that very slightly more of the bets are going on No still.

It just means the bookies are looking at polls, stats etc, they are predicting a yes vote, but bookies can be wrong all that counts are votes on the day.

Just her

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Was no bait, I merely mirrored what you said in your own post. You do not throw it at me, I will not throw it back at you. But you will not find me doing it first.



It is not that I "equate" these things so much as I see past them. Which is the point I am trying to get across to you piece by piece rather than in one big block. When it comes to morality and philosophy I do not even see a fetus or a rock or a plant or a human or an ape. I see vary degrees of sentience. And I see that as being the only thing doing any valuing, and being of any actual value, in our universe.



No one is "ignoring" anything here though, so you are making that up while presuming to admonish others falsely for "bait". You could not be more disingenuous if you tried here I suspect. I have done the exact opposite of ignore it. I have considered it quite deeply, and even addressed it directly in many of my posts. And I simply see no reason for it to be considered interesting, informative, or morally relevant. There is no onus from any philosophical to cater morally or ethically to something that is not sentient, even if it might one day become such.



EXACTLY. Now you are getting there. I think you very much should be done for murder in such a case. There is every philosophical reason to hand to suggest you should and none to suggest not. And I fear the future of our species will be to test such cases in the real world eventually.

And if you did NOT push the on button and you pushed it off the cliff...... there would be no reason to do you for murder. Even though it could potentially have been sentient later on. There is no moral or ethical reason (other than the fact it is not your property, but mine, of course) for you not to shove it off the cliff. You are making my point quite well for me here, so build on that. Do not lose this thread.

Further thought experiment. One of the things our science is working towards is the possibility of transferring human consciousness onto machine. There is nothing in science at this time telling us we can not achieve this. We may do it some day. But imagine for a moment I could do it tomorrow. And I split your consciousness out into a computer terminal with a keyboard and screen to communicate with you.

And using life support I kept your body going. Which one of those two things, if they could keep one and destroy the other, do you feel your loved ones would take home and cherish? And why.

Ok well maybe you weren't baiting me then but due to a previous experience on this thread with another post I thought you were as you are speaking to me in a similar fashion.

But oh my God, I can barely believe what I'm reading so hopefully I've got it wrong.
Are you saying I should be done for murder for pushing a robot off a cliff, and in the same post telling me abortion, not a problem at all?

That's the second time you've called me disingenuous in a post. Why would I bother myself coming on here to say something I didn't believe. I do believe the sentience of the foetus is being ignored. I don't get how you say above that the only thing of any value in the universe is sentience, so abort the foetus before it becomes sentient. How is that putting a value on sentience? Sure you know quite well they are going to be sentient in a few days weeks whatever, you say you value sentience but not unless you can see it right now right here this minute? Two days time is no good to you? I'm afraid to call you disingenuous back because I'd be sure to be reported by someone not necessarily you, despite you calling it to me above.

Ok your thought experiment, the consciousness because you can communicate with it. Although if the body was going to gain consciousness in a few days I'm sure they would pick that instead of the consciousness alone.

Ok I've a thought experiment for you.
You say you see sentience as the only thing of any value in our universe, but I'm betting you see money as valuable.

So say now your house is up for sale for half a million and that is what it's worth so your confident you'll get it. You get a call from a buyer saying I'll give you a half a million for it today.
You get another call saying I'll give you ten million for it, but you'll have to wait a week. You know that both buyers will give you the money when they say they will. Who do you sell to and why? You willing to wait a week for something of value now?

Kurtosis

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I did one earlier in May but I did it before the Claire Byrne debate. Which some are claiming changed minds!

Fair enough, perhaps they didn't complete/publish the one you participated in so.

spookwoman

https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/998347648041209856
Speaking about the move, USI President Michael Kerrigan says: "Cura only provides two options during pregnancy counselling, which can cause unnecessary pressure and lack of knowledge for people to make an informed choice about what to do in an unplanned pregnancy.

Cura does not provide contact details for abortion clinics, or information on abortion services and as a result it does not give full support for pregnant people or their partners.

"USI will be cutting all ties from now on until Cura faces the reality that abortions happen in Ireland, and that people need support here at home before, during and after an abortion."

Water John

BBC1 Hardtalk, Caroline Simmons Vs Sinead Redmond. Simmons avoiding answering the case study of the woman who had to bring her FFA baby back to Ireland in the boot of her car.
Redmond, very good.

freshpopcorn

Kurtosis wrote: »

Fair enough, perhaps they didn't complete/publish the one you participated in so.

They started collecting the data for the poll at the weekend on the 3rd or 8th and they ended the 15th from what I know!