animaal wrote: » The OP question refers to "pro-life campaigners" rather than to people who will vote against constitutional change. From what I see, the campaigners on both sides are the people with the strongest views, and they tend to be extreme in those views. On one hand: "All human life from conception needs to be protected. All who disagree are murderers". On the other: "My body, my choice, right up to birth. All who disagree are right-wing nutters, brainwashed by the church". Based on this, I would guess that there are quite a few pro-life campaigners who would want abortion treated the same as any other crime, with legal proceedings. However, I doubt many would advocate being "jailed for life" or "executed". I think the suggestion shows the OP to be somewhat extreme in his own opinions. Abortion isn't a simple issue - any legal framework, or lack of one, will lead to some outcomes that I consider to be undesirable. I don't accept that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. But I also don't accept that abortion should be allowed at any time up to birth for all reasons. E.g. I definitely wouldn't like to see abortions allowed after there's a chance of viability outside the womb. Before that, it's various shades of grey. After it can feel pain? After it has a recognisable brain? A question for the OP - If a scumbag kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach, ending her pregnancy, should he only be charged with a simple assault? It was only a clump of cells, right?
Decent Skin wrote: » The current legal position means she has to pay more for that. If you deny her rights because of your preference then it could be argued that you should thereby help foot the bill for travel. We do that for some medical procedures anyway, with the HSE funding trips for stuff that isn't available here: to make up for the problem incurred by an individual because of Ireland's limitations. What way would I vote ? If it were a basic human right then funding wouldn't come into it. I'd sort that out afterwards; which I already said - I wouldn't vote against the "right to a home" just because someone hadn't told me how it would be paid for - that's a separate issue.
rjpf1980 wrote: » If you think it's murder then it follows that a murder charge is fair? Otherwise you are pro choice. In your post you are evasive and you literally are saying now you haven't thought about it. So think about it and you will see how insane the pro life position is.
Depp wrote: » You're being very glib here. At this current moment in time any Irish woman has the right and the ability to get an abortion without any legal recourse, but she has to pay for it. If you had the chance to vote for whether or not your taxes not to be spent on something you don't agree with, what way would you vote? At the moment my taxes and premiums don't fund abortions and if I have a chance to vote in a referendum so they stay that way I will vote against it.
Decent Skin wrote: » Believe it or not my VHi premium includes "maternity benefits", which can't be removed despite being an impossibility. My taxes pay Children's Allowance, whereas part of me believes that people shouldn't have kids that they can't provide for by themselves now that we have a choice as to whether or not to have them and a church isn't dictating anymore. Physical impossibilities trump personal choices as to moral compass, and taxes are used for all sorts of things we aren't happy with; none should influence the fundamental rights though.
Depp wrote: » again, I believe personally abortion is wrong, however, if someone with different beliefs wants to get one and its not tax or insurance funded thats their business. If a doctor performs one in Ireland without a view to saving the mothers life he is commiting a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law like any criminal. Never said I was anti choice I'm pro life theres a difference, I dont want my taxes or insurance premiums going towards something I dont agree with morally. Now does that explain it for you at last or do you wish to continue making a fool of yourself?
rjpf1980 wrote: » If you think it's murder then it follows that a murder charge is fair? Otherwise you are pro choice.
Depp wrote: » I don't have the technical or legal knowledge to decide fairly what sentence a criminal should have so I'm not going to try. dont think a murder charge is fair at the same time
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.
rjpf1980 wrote: » They lead the Pro Life movement which operates out of Life House on Capel Street and is funded and supported by ultra right wing Irish American Catholics. A prominent family based in Munster who have hard line Irish Republican connections are the leading spokespersons for the movement.
Decent Skin wrote: » I don't get to decide punishment for people who break laws either; it still doesn't stop me from voicing my opinion that fraud or scumbaggery should be dealt with in a particular way that "already in statute" already has, because those are far too lenient.
Depp wrote: » Its not for me to say, I don't decide punishments for people that break laws and I'm sure a punishment for doctors performing illegal abortions is already in statute and if so thats the punishment I believe should be levelled
Decent Skin wrote: » You still didn't say how. And illegal procedures vary. As does the punishment for same. Not all are described as "murder". So what punishment is appropriate ?
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » As of last year, there were 26 abortions in Ireland since the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act. No doubt, that figure has since risen. Even prior to that Act, there was about a dozen abortions per year carried-out in Ireland.
rjpf1980 wrote: » If you think it is wrong you think it is murder and if you think it is murder you must want people punished the same as any other killer?
Depp wrote: » If a doctor performs a an abortion in Ireland currently hes performing an illegal procedure
Depp wrote: » If a doctor performs a an abortion in Ireland currently hes performing an illegal procedure and should be punished the same as any other doctor who performs an illegal procedure, its very simple.
Depp wrote: » how many times are you going to bang the same old drum? I think I've explaind this to you 3 or 4 times so far? I don't agree with abortion personally but if someone does agree who am I to tell them they're wrong? My reasoning for a potential no vote is that I don't want my taxes or health insurance premiums funding it. Im not trying to oppress you or take away your ''rights'' I just think you should have to pay for your own bloody rights!
Decent Skin wrote: » The OP's question was clearly - "how?"
Depp wrote: » I have a similar reaction to your viewpoint as you do to mine
Depp wrote: » 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.
Depp wrote: » theres no denying that once its heart is beating, its hard to argue that a fetus is not 'alive'
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?
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: » 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'
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.
rjpf1980 wrote: » They are being lead and directed by these kooks. The Pro Life movement if their baby excuse the pun.
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!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
