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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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: » 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: » 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: » I can guarantee that the referendum won't include the latter. So you'll vote in favour ?
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.
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.
applehunter wrote: I'll speak for the unborn child.
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 ?
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!
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: » 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
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
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?
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.
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.
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: » You're missing the point completely, the pro-life campaign of today is not the pro-life campaign of the 90s.
Depp wrote: » I know its semantics but we're pro-life not anti-choice, same as people are pro-choice and not anti-life.
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.
