How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

Life is not person-hood.

Decent Skin wrote: »

Why the fixation on 26 weeks ? Have you asked anyone else where their comfort zone ends and where they might start to align with your view ? It's the best way to discuss things, as PucaMama and myself found out.

I know a couple with a child born earlier than 26 weeks and she's fine now.

A tumor would experience the same reactions to stimuli as any other collection of cells.

Blue_Bear wrote: »

A 26 week old fetus is more than a collection of cells.

Why the fixation on 26 weeks ? Have you asked anyone else where their comfort zone ends and where they might start to align with your view ? It's the best way to discuss things, as PucaMama and myself found out.

rainbow kirby

PucaMama wrote: »

There needs to be a lot of work done here to improve the life of people with disabilities and other difficulties. And not to forget the huge lack of support for parents. My mother got us to Dublin for every appointment I needed as a child often by herself and we hadn't it near as bad as other families.

I think everyone, wherever their views lie on other issues, can agree on that one.

One is a person, the other is developing fetus.

One thing that irritates me is some people thing pro life people don't care what happens to them once they are born. Far from it for me. There needs to be a lot of work done here to improve the life of people with disabilities and other difficulties. And not to forget the huge lack of support for parents. My mother got us to Dublin for every appointment I needed as a child often by herself and we hadn't it near as bad as other families.

feargale wrote: »

So you're partly pro-life then?

If you like labels then yes. I don't know anyone who's "anti-life" though.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not really any change until new law is passed. So it comes down to wether you trust the government to pass the law you hope for.

Wouldn't trust a government in a million years, but that won't stop me voting the way I believe is right.

The Specialist

Functioning human adult vs collection of cells.

feargale

Decent Skin wrote: »

Given the choice I'd play safe and have it 0-10 or maybe 0-12 weeks

So you're partly pro-life then?

Yes, a child needs care to survive, that isn't what is meant by viability
As you know. It is a question of whether it is biologically capable of surviving.

Pain is a response to external stimulus. Tumors would experience pain, should we force people to leave them to grow too?

PucaMama wrote: »

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Given the reticence to even allow a vote, I would suspect that the chances of it being "unlimited" would be impossible to push through.

I would even go so far as to say that your full list of scenarios in which to say yes wouldn't be catered for

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Not really any change until new law is passed. So it comes down to wether you trust the government to pass the law you hope for.

It's a hard thing to trust them with

The Specialist

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

In your opinion

No it's pretty much fact.

Little CuChulainn

PucaMama wrote: »

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Not really any change until new law is passed. So it comes down to wether you trust the government to pass the law you hope for.

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I would accept it happening here if it wasn't for just any reason. Like for the sex of the child, or it having a disability, or someone just not wanting a child. Those are not reasons for abortion those are reasons for adoption. For cases like very underage mothers, for rape, for a real risk towards the mothers life, for the cases where the child is already dead (having seen a woman pace the halls of a hospital having to carry her dead child to term) these are the times to say yes.

Then - believe it or not - you and I are VERY closely aligned, even though it would not have even remotely seemed that way earlier.

I'm not the most unreasonable, I also supported the improved availability of the emergency contraception, but I do draw lines and I suppose I'm fairly set on those lines

Little CuChulainn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Morally, the woman's right to choose outweighs that of the fetus.

In your opinion

Tony Grumpy Mandible wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

I'm not making anyone do anything. And break themselves? I've seen people pay more for dental treatment here.

Having the eighth amendment creates the situation where those things happen though. And voting for the eighth amendment to remain is voting for at home and backstreet abortions, it's voting for the couples who choose to have FFA pregnancies aborted to keep having ashes delivered by courier. It's voting for teenagers and asylum seekers to keep making desperate, dangerous decisions. If I vote to maintain a ban on ambulances I don't get off the hook by saying I don't force anyone to break their legs and they should just not do that.

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

PucaMama wrote: »

I would accept it happening here if it wasn't for just any reason. Like for the sex of the child, or it having a disability, or someone just not wanting a child. Those are not reasons for abortion those are reasons for adoption. For cases like very underage mothers, for rape, for a real risk towards the mothers life, for the cases where the child is already dead (having seen a woman pace the halls of a hospital having to carry her dead child to term) these are the times to say yes.

Then - believe it or not - you and I are VERY closely aligned, even though it would not have even remotely seemed that way earlier.

And we're Godwined. You are conflating two separate things.

Morally, the woman's right to choose outweighs that of the fetus. A person doesn't become a citizen until they're born. The state doesn't issue birth certs or passports at the point of conception.

Read back. I said I wouldn't be comfortable with anything beyond 10 or 12 weeks because that's when the process of becoming a person starts (I think the accepted average is 16 weeks but development rates vary and I have no desire to kill off anything close to a person.

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I have never had a vote on abortion in Ireland and recently I found I'm not the most extreme either so I disagree

So you're not against abortions happening in Ireland? You might not personally be preventing it but it seems that your wish is for it to continue to be farmed out to England. Is that incorrect?

I would accept it happening here if it wasn't for just any reason. Like for the sex of the child, or it having a disability, or someone just not wanting a child. Those are not reasons for abortion those are reasons for adoption. For cases like very underage mothers, for rape, for a real risk towards the mothers life, for the cases where the child is already dead (having seen a woman pace the halls of a hospital having to carry her dead child to term) these are the times to say yes.

Little CuChulainn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fetal viability separate from the mother seems like a reasonable place to do so. Even that would likely require intensive care for an extended duration.

A pro-life supporter sees no area for reasonable debate. Life is sacrosanct to them, end of.

Well no, only ones who believe in life at conception. Pro life voters have different thresholds for when they object to abortion.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

PucaMama wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

I'm not making anyone do anything. And break themselves? I've seen people pay more for dental treatment here.

Having the eighth amendment creates the situation where those things happen though. And voting for the eighth amendment to remain is voting for at home and backstreet abortions, it's voting for the couples who choose to have FFA pregnancies aborted to keep having ashes delivered by courier. It's voting for teenagers and asylum seekers to keep making desperate, dangerous decisions. If I vote to maintain a ban on ambulances I don't get off the hook by saying I don't force anyone to break their legs and they should just not do that.

To my eyes, it marks the point that a fetus can be seen as an independent entity from the mother. At stage that it has a reasonable chance at survival.

Widdershins

thee glitz wrote: »

You're saying abortions are mandatory? They're not, but may be necessary in rare circumstances.

How did you deduce that? I said nothing of the sort

I believe if a lot of social problems were sorted a lot less people would be put in a situation where they felt abortion was their only option. Like the judging of adults who give a child up for adoption, they are doing a lot better than people who keep a child and don't care about it.