Icemancometh wrote: » Ramblings is a bit unfair, and I believe you're engaging in quite a bit of bad faith. My reason for being pro-choice is to with regard to the autonomy of women over their own bodies, and the right to determine their own fate. You can take or leave that if you like, your choice. I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.
AnGaelach wrote: » Honestly, I was shocked at how liberal this result was. I was even more surprised to learn it was Sinn Féin and not Fine Gael that took a potshot at the CA about being too liberal. I could be tempted into voting (or abstaining from voting) for replacing the amendment with FFA/rape but constitutionally protecting a right to abortion up to 12 weeks "for no reason" at all is far far far too liberal for me. I'll be voting firmly against any such measure.
Icemancometh wrote: I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.
pilly wrote: » You didn't say newborn though. You said an infant up to a few months old. They look at things, they recognise voices and faces, they have plenty of thoughts. You didn't say someone with severe brain injury either. You actually said intellectual disability. People with extremely low intellectual capacity definitely have thoughts. I may not have studied neurophysiology but I know someone just throwing crap out there for the sake of it. Don't believe for one moment that you're pro-choice. And as previously stated I'm now torn on the issue but your ramblings wouldn't sway me one way or the other.
Icemancometh wrote: In what way does an infant display awareness? In what way does someone with a severe acquired brain injury display awareness or thoughts?
Icemancometh wrote: It's been a long time since I studied neurophysiology, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that a newborn is any way sentient.
pilly wrote: » I don't agree that any of those groups you mention have no thoughts or awareness of their surroundings. What makes you think an infant doesn't have awareness? Why would they look around so? They're very aware.
Icemancometh wrote: Several people here have posted that the foetus should have no protection, because it has no thoughts, no awareness of its surroundings and no sense of self. But this logic also applies to infants for the first few months of life. It applies to those with severe intellectual disabilities, whether congenital or acquired. It also applies to those with severe dementia. Why don't we apply the same logic to these groups, as we seek to apply to the foetus?
AnGaelach wrote: » Well yeah, obviously the reason is they don't want to carry the child, that's a bit of a tautology isn't it? The fact is they don't have to give any opinion or reasoning on their decision. It's essentially just "I want it".
noaddedsugar wrote: » Oh ok it's just clunky phrasing then. Grand that they don't have to give a reason, but there certainly will be a reason that the woman is seeking an abortion.
AnGaelach wrote: » They don't have to give any reason so "no reason" fits better than "any reason".
noaddedsugar wrote: » 'For no reason' is that the actual phrasing? I don't think anyone out there has an abortion 'for no reason' do they? I would think it would be for 'any reason'.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Barbie! wrote: » Local elections are due in the next few weeks. I wonder will they lump in a referendum with that vote or maybe it would be too soon. Either way I see a referendum being called because I believe it would be political suicide for any party to try legislate without going to the people. As I said in my first post yesterday, I think any vote to bring in abortion will be defeat cause their is a far large silent majority than people think. Edit to add I just seen January's post so running a referendum with the local elections is probably out of the question.
pilly wrote: » The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?
January wrote: » The difference being the other groups mentioned aren't living in the wombs of another person.
Icemancometh wrote: » Feel like I should this as a disclaimer; I'm personally pro-choice, and fully believe in women's autonomy over their own bodies. Several people here have posted that the foetus should have no protection, because it has no thoughts, no awareness of its surroundings and no sense of self. But this logic also applies to infants for the first few months of life. It applies to those with severe intellectual disabilities, whether congenital or acquired. It also applies to those with severe dementia. Why don't we apply the same logic to these groups, as we seek to apply to the foetus?
infogiver wrote: » Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?
