Depp wrote: » 90% of people who plan on voting pro-life in a potential referendum are not like this. to bring up a tiny minority of the campaign is ridiculous. Its becoming more and more obvious you're doing your best to provoke an arguement. Because you have ''spoken to'' a handful of people you dont know the motivations of the whole pro-life campaign
Depp wrote: » ill be voting no so i can have a chance to have a say in the choice of what my taxes are spent on. any woman currently has the choice and by all means let them choose, but I dont want my money going towards it
rjpf1980 wrote: » This tiny minority are the chief organizers of the pro life anti choice movement. They are the leading campaigners on this issue. If they had their way women would be detained and forced to give birth and women prevented from travelling for abortions abroad and denied information. They would fill the jails with women who have had abortions.
Depp wrote: » I'll agree I dont know enough either to argue with you when a fetus/child becomes sentient its a confusing issue and even neurologists dont seem to be able to agree on it!
Decent Skin wrote: » That contradicts itself. You do know that "by all means" has a meaning and isn't just something to stick in there ? Someone has a right to a home, and we contribute to rent allowance etc but don't give them a freebie. Would you vote against the right to a home based on the above flawed logic ? I do hear what you're saying and partly agree mind - it's just not a logical reason for voting no, particularly if you can type the above. Did you ask what gay weddings would cost before voting last year ?
applehunter wrote: I'll speak for the unborn child.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Entirely agreed. Sorry to harp on this point but I always find it useful in any discussion to CLING to points of agreement and move from there. The point I have is that while we can not identify a point when sentience arises, we can CERTAINLY identify points where it is absolutely absent. So surely you can see how this applies to your application of "humanity" and "person hood" to a 12 week old fetus for example? I do not mean to offend or insult by saying your moral position on this is incoherent, but to explain exactly why I find it to be so. I know I would ENTIRELY reverse my opinion on abortion, over night.......... and without hesitation, reservation or apology....... should someone erect a coherent argument for affording a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern, or relevant "humanity" or "person hood". Such arguments are simply not forthcoming however. I was genuinely curious to see if you had one as you are less shrill and more coherent that many posters espousing your position.
Depp wrote: » Sorry I didn't word my sentence better I guess?... I didnt care how much they cost as the referendum was for them to be allowed, not for them to be state funded.
Decent Skin wrote: » I can guarantee that the referendum won't include the latter. So you'll vote in favour ?
Depp wrote: » it depends alot on what way its classed, if its classed as an essential procedure and can be paid for by health insurance or medical cards I'll be voting no but if its classed as an optional procedure that has to be paid for out of pocket I most likely wont go to the polls. Its would be hypocritical of me to vote for something I don't agree with to be allowed but if it doesn't affect me who am I to say what someone who does agree with it can and can't do? also if its not clarified how it will have to be financed I will be voting no.
Decent Skin wrote: » There will be no reference to funding whatsoever in a referendum. It's a "right to access" topic. Actually - it's even less than that, as it's a binary vote to remove a cockup of an insertion. It's hard not to deduce that you're justifying voting no based on something you know has never been in a referendum. Or maybe I'm being unfair - how many referenda have you lived through / voted in ?
Depp wrote: » rest assured, this isn't my first rodeo, I dont expect it to be mentioned in the referendum but until its clarified by government how the right to access will be funded and confirmed it wont in any part be state or insurance funded Ill be voting no.
Decent Skin wrote: » Clarified ? By an Irish government ? Two chances, as you'll know if it's not your first rodeo. Think "right to access to water" and you'll get the idea!
mansize wrote: » Apparently they'll get breast cancer and lots of other terrible things according to this pro-life group https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFvOoMvpJGE
Depp wrote: » well untill its clarified satisfactorily that my taxes and insurance wont be going towards funding unrestricted abortions I will be voting no. I'll admit I'm not overly optimistic this will happen but if it does I'll more than likely abstain from the vote and allow the people who this will actually affect make the decision. I'm not sure how I can clarify my stance further?
Depp wrote: » I suppose the way I see it really is the fact that a healthy fetus has the potential to and the high probability that they will develop into a sentient human being is what gives them their humanity for me. Each to their own I guess but thats just the way I see it.
rjpf1980 wrote: » This tiny minority are the chief organizers of the pro life anti choice movement. They are the leading campaigners on this issue. They are deeply sinister extreme right wing fanatics. If they had their way women would be detained and forced to give birth and women prevented from travelling for abortions abroad and denied information. They would fill the jails with women who have had abortions.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » They still don't represent the majority of pro life voters.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Indeed, but that position kinda makes my point for me. I do not think there are many things that can simultaneously be "X" and be becoming "X" at the same time. You are either X or you are not. If you are "becoming" X then one thing we can say is you are NOT X. So when you say it has the potential to become a human being..... you are ALSO saying it is NOT a human being. And that is why I feel the position of treating it as one gets rendered incoherent and I simply do not understand the position you hold, as you have described it.
Decent Skin wrote: » But they're getting to block said voters from having the louder voice, both on-air in debates (see some horrendous vile tripe posted early in the thread) and in terms of the government refusing to hold a referendum.
Depp wrote: » the only people that pay attention to those cooks are pro-choicers the vast majority of pro-lifers I come in contact with pay completely no heed to them and have our own views for reasons independent of what they say.
Depp wrote: » its not that I see a fetus as becoming a human, its that I see it as a human that is not yet fully self aware. My fundamental belief is that the fact the overwhelming likelihood of the fetus becoming sentient means for me that outside of extreme circumstances the fetus deserves the chance to be allowed to become sentient.
Depp wrote: » I know I'm probably not getting it accross very well
Depp wrote: » I'm also having a hard time understanding your viewpoint.
Depp wrote: » I'm glad there are people on here still who don't just resort to telling me I'm stupid for my thinking or that I'm brainwashed by the church!
rjpf1980 wrote: » They are being lead and directed by these kooks. The Pro Life movement if their baby excuse the pun.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » At the extremes though that would also be a moral argument against contraception. In both cases you are preventing biological material from becoming sentient when it otherwise quite likely would. Now SUBJECTIVELY I can see how you differentiate the two. In one case you just have people having sex. In the other you have a fetus that is demonstrably developing. So it SEEMS coherent to differentiate. But at an intellectual level the differentiation is not as clear. Because you are arguing nothing more than potentials and saying this mass of bio-matter has the right to become sentient. And worse, that one type of biomatter has that right (the fetus) but another does not (the sperm and egg prevented from meeting by contraception). In both cases you simply have something that is not sentient, and you are arguing for it to have the "right" to become so. Yet for me it is the faculty sentience and consciousness itself that we even hang "rights" off. And I fear you fuzz that a little by saying it is "not yet fully self aware". That phrase suggests, intentioned or otherwise, that it is PARTIALLY or somewhat self aware. It is not self aware AT ALL on any level at all that we can discern, and it lacks the broadcasting towers to even talk about it being self aware in any meaningful way. Without that faculty, and the fetus at 12 weeks neither has it nor even the pre-requisites for producing it, I honestly see no coherent way to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern. It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me. I think you are getting it across perfectly well actually. It is the position itself, rather than your presentation of it, that is incoherent and fallible for me. I think I genuinely understand your position perfectly well. I just find the position faulty and internally incoherent and in some ways even self-contradictory (hence the "simultaneously X and becoming X" comment for example). I am happy to expand upon it further if you have questions. My position itself is quite simple to understand though I feel. Basically I think moral and ethical concern is afforded to something proportionally to it's capability for sentience and consciousness and subjective experience. And when something lacks not just that, but any faculty for even producing it, then I hold no moral and ethical concern for that thing. Rocks, table legs, sandwiches, cars, clouds and the fetus at 12 weeks have, pretty much exactly, the same level of potential for possessing that faculty. That is to say: None. Therefore they are pretty much morally equivalent for me. I hold as much moral and ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus as you likely do for a rock. One of the reasons I enter into discussions on these kinds of topics is I find them genuinely interesting. Another reason I do so however is that I think I can represent my side better than some people do. There are SOME people (on both sides, but I am more concerned with the ones on my side) who do represent themselves, and my proxy the pro-choice movement, rather poorly indeed. All I can do is try to keep the average level of cordiality and decorum and discourse up So it is nice to hear I am achieving that at least a bit, thank you.
Depp wrote: » I suppose its not that I dont understand where you're coming from its that I have a similar reaction to your viewpoint as you do to mine but i guess everyone cant agree on everything! My thoughts about the whole contraception thing is that while a fetus will develop into a sentient human, a sperm or an egg on its own will not. the more I think about it, while its an an importiant factor, its not neceserily the brain activity that matters to me the most But I dont think a fetus that has a heartbeat should be aborted because sentient or not, theres no denying that once its heart is beating, its hard to argue that a fetus is not 'alive'
rjpf1980 wrote: » You believe it's murder don't you so you believe in life imprisonment?
Depp wrote: » the doctor should have his license revoked and he should be punished
Depp wrote: » We've been over this, a doctor who performs a procedure In Ireland thats Illegal in Ireland should be stricken from the register and punished. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to tell you that before you understand?
rjpf1980 wrote: » What punishment for the doctor? Life? What punishment for the women? They have killed theor babies according to you? That's illegal and there is no punishment?
