eviltwin wrote: » There's plenty of anti choice posters here who can verify for themselves if they believe in punishing women who have abortions and those that assist them. I wouldn't try to second guess anyone's views.
rjpf1980 wrote: » You believe abortion is murder but only believe doctors who perform abortions should be punished for malpractice? LOL
rjpf1980 wrote: » Surely if you wanted to prevent the mass murder of unborn babies - that is what abortion is according to pro-lifers - that is the logical road to go down.
Depp wrote: » I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.
Widdershins wrote: » If abortion on Irish soil would be taxpayer-funded, then my taxes are going to go towards that too, and that's fine by me! If the abortion didn't happen then my taxes would be supporting the new baby through childhood,and I don't mind that either but obviously it costs a lot more to rear a child. So, it makes no sense to worry about tax funding abortions. I do think we should have some say in how our taxes are used.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » That is why there is a problem with the "pro-life" term. Most pro-choice people are also pro-life. So calling one side "pro-life" does not create a useful distinction and I think there is even a propaganda intention there to make it sound like anyone who is not pro-life must be anti-life. Similarly calling the pro-life people "anti abortion" would not help because it seems to me the majority of pro-choice people are anti abortion too. I know I am. I would like a world where 100% of women CAN have abortions but 0% of them ever actually do. The same way as I would like a world where 100% of people CAN have a heart bypass if they want, but 0% of people actually ever need to. I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-choice who actually WANTS women to be going around having abortions. And for the same reason the label "pro abortion" does not work for the pro-choice people. Even though for propaganda reasons a lot of anti choice people want to label us thus. So at least "anti choice" fits, it does distinguish from the pro-choice position, it is not really a distortion of the positions held on the subject, and so forth. I am of course open to better labels, but for me at least "anti choice" is the one I use at present. Certainly more so than the "pro life" label.
Depp wrote: » as i've said I come from a live and let live point of view, I don't care what others do, if they're ok with who they are and how they live, sweet! If someone wants to have the choice, work away. My objection is I don't want my tax money going to fund something that goes against my morals. So I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life.
rjpf1980 wrote: » Being pro life means you are anti choice. If you believe abortion is murder surely you would want the murders stopped and the murderers punished. That means you would want abortion banned you would want to prevent people to travel for abortion and you would want information about abortion to be prohibited? That is what the anti choice pro life wanted in the referendum in the early 1990s. The people voted against prohibiting travel or information and voted in favour of abortion in limited circumstances.
AbusesToilets wrote: » I always am struck by the contrast in those who decry abortion and argue so passionately for the right to life for a fetus, yet couldn't give a toss for the child (and mother) after birth.Abortion isn't some brutal, traumatic experience. It's a normal out patient medical procedure, little different from getting a tooth pulled.
eviltwin wrote: » Unfortunately we don't get to pick and choose what our taxes pay for.
Depp wrote: » My objection is I don't want my tax money going to fund something that goes against my morals. So I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I would prefer a small quantity of tax money went to letting a single mother have the abortion she wants than a large amount of tax money supporting a family that no one wanted that we have to pay to some people. But this would involve getting into the minutia of laying out the relative costs of both options and working out in boring fashion which one would be cheap in the long run. '' One month's child benefit is more than the cost of a medical abortion (except in a clinic, where it costs the equivalent of 2 or 3 months C.B) It's clear that an abortion is a cheaper, once off cost to the taxpayer.
GritBiscuit wrote: » The argument for late term abortion is much greyer than early term IMO. Certain legal contraceptives are by design abortifacients. Preventing implantation of what is possibly a fertilised egg... The MAP is an abortifacient and effectively available OTC up to five days post intercourse. So, in the literal sense abortion is already available freely and legally in Ireland. The argument then has to move to why is it legal to "murder" a "child" (hyperbolic pro-life language, not mine!) the day or week of it's conception but it is a crime two weeks, three weeks or a month later...the trouble with the law at the moment, besides the obvious political head-in-the-sanding as it turns a blind eye to those travelling to the UK and indeed offering medical supports on their return, is it is not consistent.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » What the moral basis for your issue with it is therefore, I can only guess at until such time as you were to lay it out.
anothernight wrote: » The MAP is not an abortifacient. It works by delaying ovulation. It used to be hypothesised that it may also prevent implantation, but that is not widely accepted anymore (you will notice that in the literature they always say that it "may" happen, not that it "does").
GritBiscuit wrote: » And if you have already ovulated?
Depp wrote: » suppose I haven't really provided this to be fair, my problem is I see a viable unborn fetus as a living human or a real person as you put it. I don't agree with ending this life due to inconvenience.
Depp wrote: » you missed the second half of that post I think
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You are not alone in seeing it that way for sure. There is just no real coherent basis for seeing it that way that I know of other than emotional attachment to the words. I guess it comes down to nothing more than linguistics. Words like "Human" and "person" are as fuzzy as anyone requires them to be. My own position on abortion was formed when I decided to not only sit down and REALLY understand what I mean by those words.... but specifically what I mean by them in the context of a fetus or the subject of abortion. And what I realized is there is no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus. All the things I would hang moral or ethical concern off..... say the faculty of human consciousness and sentience for example..... are simply ABSENT in the fetus. And in the absence of these things I have no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock. In fact not only are they absent, the pre-requisites for producing them are even absent. I have often used the analogy to radio. If Human sentience and consciousness are analogous to radio waves.... then seeking them in a 16 week old fetus is akin to not only seeking radio waves when they are not even there.... but in fact the broadcasting tower itself has not even been built yet. It is, to me at least, a nonsense.
Rainman16 wrote: » What socially liberal people often forget to consider is the financial cost of making an expensive medical procedure, a 'right' of the people. A big factor in my vote on the 8th amendment will be how they plan to pay for it.
Depp wrote: » You're missing the point completely, the pro-life campaign of today is not the pro-life campaign of the 90s.
Decent Skin wrote: » Nope, you can't hog that term thanks. I'm pro-life and you are preventing a choice. A choice that you can opt not to avail of, because it's just that. A choice.
Depp wrote: » but its also believed scientifically that consciousness and sentience are absent truly up till as far as 5 months post partem, do you think by that logic its morally ok to have a baby, raise it for two months and then change your mind and dispose of it then, as consciousness and sentience are still absent?
Depp wrote: » ill be voting no so i can have a chance to have a say in the choice of what my takes are spent on.
rjpf1980 wrote: » Yes it is. They are the same right wing Catholic ideologues including at least one prominent family who are the leading spokes persons on national media. A number of prominent anti abortion campaigners were members of the notorious Youth Defence extremist group. They want abortion banned in all circumstances even suicide or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. They are opposed to abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities. If they could they would ban the right to travel for an abortion and ban the right to information on abortion services. They are raving ultra conservative Catholic nutjobs. I have spoken with these people when I asked what their aims and beliefs were and they told me.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Peter Singer is actually known for arguing essentially that I believe. In fact my position on abortion is specifically formed to avoid that. Because once the FACULTY of consciousness and sentience has arisen in an entity AT ALL..... as it does at SOME point in the development from fetus to child......... then there are all kinds of scientific and philosophical debates to be had as to when it has risen to the point of warranting moral and ethical concern. And slippery slope and "no true scotsman" issues will abound in that discussion. However that does not at all change my point that in an entity...... such as a fetus at 16 weeks......... that lacks the faculty, or even it's basic pre-requisites ENTIRELY..... there is no coherent basis to hang moral or ethical concerns off it. In the context of the point I am making, your question would be a red herring at best. I happily admit that I do not know enough about human consciousness to coherently identify a line in the sand when moral and ethical concern make absolute sense. But that does NOT impact my ability to identify periods or points when moral and ethical concern make NO SENSE AT ALL. And that difference is neither subtle nor unimportant when taken in context. Especially in the context of the fact 90% or more of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks, not 16, 20, 24 or 2 months post-birth. So, just out of curiosity, would your vote STILL be "no" against "abortion on demand" if it was viewed legally and financially as an entirely elective procedure and therefore not covered by medical insurance of any kind, but purely out of the pocket of the person seeking it? If no then at least you are being consistent, but if yes then perhaps the financial reasons you give for your "no" vote are more red herring than actual. And why would you want your money going, instead of to a one off medical procedure, to paying for the child benefits and other state expenses related to a child.... in this case an unwanted child? Surely if your reasons are financial only then the cheaper option for the tax budget would be the way to go?
