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.
Depp wrote: » you missed the second half of that post I think
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.
GritBiscuit wrote: » And if you have already ovulated?
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
eviltwin wrote: » Unfortunately we don't get to pick and choose what our taxes pay for.
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.
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.
Depp wrote: » I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
osarusan wrote: » Let's not pretend that camps that detain pregnant women until they give birth is anything other than a figment of your imagination.
Depp wrote: » You seem to be obsessed with putting words into my mouth. I've clearly stated my views twice now and you keep harping on about accomplices and other jurisdictions and things I never mentioned. I never said the doctor should be labelled a murderer, I said he should be punished for performing a practice illegally, I'd be more inclined for the charge to come down the serious malpractice route personally. I think women should be allowed travel because my views are my views, and unlike some people don't go about forcing them down the throats of others. The reason I don't want it practiced here is I don't want my tax money or my health insurance premiums funding something I don't agree with morally. Its not logical inconsistencies its not being a 'know-it-all-my-way-is-best' d!ck about things.
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.
rjpf1980 wrote: » In an ideal world without legal abortion is this what pro-life people envision?
rjpf1980 wrote: » If you believe abortion is murder then the logic follows that the doctor goes goes down for murder plus anyone else involved as an accomplice? If I were in a relationship with a woman and we have an unwanted pregnancy and we planned to have an abortion if we intercepted before we went through with it we would guilty of attempted murder wouldn't we? If we followed through on our plan we would be murderers wouldn't we? Accordingly it wouldn't be a mistake - it would be a crime and indeed a capital crime in many jurisdictions if abortion everywhere in the world was considered equivalent with murder. If you really believed abortion was murder surely you would want women to be prohibited from travelling for abortions and you would trying to have laws passed that would punish anyone involved in aborting Irish babies to be arrested and punished on Irish soil? The logical inconsistencies of your beliefs are so obvious. You want abortion to be prohibited but there should be no punishment?
Decent Skin wrote: » Certainly not completely, but it can't be a scenario where only the rich can avail of it either, because if unplanned/unwanted kids are all in poorer families then things will get worse. Acknowledging that many money-rich families are poorer in real terms of what really matters, but still.
