Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

13567

Comments

  • #62
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I don't know whether they would or they wouldn't to be honest, but my point is that if you're saying that the vast majority of abortions are already carried out in the first trimester, then what's the point in legislating to allow only for abortion in the first trimester? It would seem more than a bit pointless surely? Like one of the reasons for late stage abortions is because those women never even realised they were pregnant in the first place. Another reason is the time it takes to save up the money to go abroad, another is that often these women go through months of mentally torturing themselves because they don't want to have an abortion, but they don't want to give birth either. My point is that I don't care what their reasons are, I trust that they know they are doing what is right for themselves, and I'd rather they were able to do that safely and with as minimum distress as possible, and as much support afterwards as possible.
    And how is all this done with minimal distress when abortion is not provided in Ireland? And again is there actually any data how many women need five or six or more moths to decide if they want to keep the child. Unless there are some other issues very few because if nothing else pregnancy is not something one would want to do without the pay off at the end. A lot of women ate also mentally torturing themselves because the of the abuse and guilt the pro life activists pile on them.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I didn't see this bit. But I don't agree that the current laws actually are a means of controlling the lives of poor and vulnerable because the State already provides support for the poor and vulnerable, and I don't agree with the idea of determining that a person is any less equipped to have children by virtue of their social status alone. That's a tactic that if abortion laws were broadened in this country could massively backfire in that the State would no longer feel obliged to provide for the poor and vulnerable because the State now provides for abortion, leaving a woman two choices - abort, or face the consequences. It forces their hands, and that has not just consequences for them, but consequences for their children that they chose to have rather than an abortion.
    Social services are overwhelmed by the amount of cases, very often that involves vulnerable parents with drug or alcohol dependency and similar issues. I think it's reasonable to assume at least some of them would avail of abortion services if they were available to them. It's not about social status It's about options that the most vulnerable have.


  • #63
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,147 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    This is why I never, as a pro-choice campaigner, use the "Well if you do not allow abortions people will just go to the UK and get them anyway".

    For me the moral and ethical discussion is about whether we as a society/state should be offering abortion by choice as a service, and with what limitations.

    That, having established those limitations, there may be people "determined to get one one way or another" who go outside the system and do so is irrelevant to me.

    Our goal should be to decide our moral and ethical position together on what to offer, or not offer, as a service. What people who do not or can not avail of that service then decide to do is, for me, a different discussion.



    Exactly. So the people who get annoyed at having the fetus described as a bunch of cells need to ask themselves why they have an issue with that    .

    A lot of abortions do not just happen on a clump of cells however, but a barely differentiated clump of cells, such as the abortifacient medication used shortly after conception.

    However the "well we are all just a clump of cells really" point brings up what for me is the core discussion that abortion requires we have. Which is......... when you speak of "Rights"............ what EXACTLY is it that has rights, what EXACTLY is it we assign rights to, and is the thing identified actually something the fetus being aborted has?

    I have thought long and hard on that question and I have come to the conclusion that no, no it isn't, and hence I have no moral or ethical concern about 12 or 16 week old fetuses being aborted.

    Why people get annoyed about the term foetus is because it is used to devalue, to dehumanise. You dont go to a foetus shower you go to a baby shower a pregnant woman doesnt say i can feel the foetus, she says I can feel the baby. Use of a purely medical term is dishonest and agenda ridden. People don't refer to their cardiac arrest they talk of their heart attack. People don't talk about their ductal carcinoma, they speak of their breast cancer.

    If we think of abortion it is the right to choose to kill babies that are not wanted. Why should the right to choose to kill the unwanted be a right. If I no longer want to look after my dependent father should I have the right to choose to kill him.
    The right to life is basic, fundamental, inalienable. Once we start to qualify this most basic right due to whether that life is loved or unloved, disabled or able bodied, male or female, we lose something of our humanity.

    I respect your views and your opinions as you seem to have given them deep consideration.
    If we are going to debate this issue for the next 9 months we need to respect each others different views and opinions. I believe that there is support in this country for abortion in limited instances such as rape and FFA. I also believe that a large part of the electorate do not trust politicians to make these decisions after a referendum. They want to know precisely what consequences their vote will have.

    The Marriage Equality referendum was rejected by 38% of the electorate. This was despite it being about equality, love, decency etc. It was supported by all the main political parties and by an overwhelming majority in the media.

    It was in the words of the infamous Amnesty International speaker "an easier sell than killing babies". Yet almost 4 out of every ten voters rejected it.
    Abortion is going to be much more divisive, with much more entrenched views because it is literally a matter of life or death.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #64
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That is just not true. If you go into hospital and ask them to remove your liver, they will refuse
    Yeah, that's implied by the word "treatment". And the word "requiring" before it.

    I didn't think I'd have to clarify that we're not talking about cosmetic surgery or body modification. Though that said, a pregnant woman will be far more limited in what they can get done than I can.


  • #65
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,147 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    seamus wrote: »
    As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

    The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

    If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

    Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

    Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

    That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

    I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

    This is just sensationalist nonsense. Any decision a pregnant woman makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it" How can you stand over such drivel.
    Imagine the paperwork. Would you like a small or large meal? Oh your pregnant? You'll have to get state approval.

    Tea or coffee? Or your pregnant? I'll just have to ring the government.

    Of course it would suit you to move the debate away from abortion and to nonsense like the above.

    Nurses and doctors make many decisions for both male and female patients without consulting you the patient.

    Do you think every patient, with zero medical knowledge should be allowed to second guess doctors or surgeons?
    Of course choices are removed from you in hospital. If you are in a public ward you have to watch Coronation Street for Gods sake.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #66
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The 65% figure relates to the number who voted in favour of legislating for abortion with terms and conditions attached. 8% was the number who voted in favour of legislating for abortion without terms and conditions attached.

    It was 8% of the 64%, so 5%.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    AustinLostin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 181 ✭✭AustinLostin


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    This is just sensationalist nonsense. Any decision a pregnant woman makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it" How can you stand over such drivel.
    Imagine the paperwork. Would you like a small or large meal? Oh your pregnant? You'll have to get state approval.

    Tea or coffee? Or your pregnant? I'll just have to ring the government.

    Of course it would suit you to move the debate away from abortion and to nonsense like the above.

    Nurses and doctors make many decisions for both male and female patients without consulting you the patient.

    Do you think every patient, with zero medical knowledge should be allowed to second guess doctors or surgeons?
    Of course choices are removed from you in hospital. If you are in a public ward you have to watch Coronation Street for Gods sake.

    Eh... you can choose whether or not you get treated in hospital unless for some reason you can't communicate your consent. I think you are deliberately misinterpreting whats being said. Its consider assault if a procedure is carried out without your approval (obviously there can be mitigating circumstances), that's just a fact.


  • #68
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Do you think every patient, with zero medical knowledge should be allowed to second guess doctors or surgeons?
    They can, and they do.

    If you're admitted to a hospital with chest pains, there is nothing stopping you from standing up and walking out the door and refusing to be treated.

    Unless you're pregnant. Or unconscious.

    Now, there are fringe cases, but medicine is not black and white. Like this one. Typically if a Witness refuses a transfusion the hospital obliges, even if it means death for the patient. This was a really bizarre one where the child's life was not at risk, but the mother's wishes were overridden anyway. (Not relevant to the eighth, to be clear).

    But the primary principle is clear - any patient is entitled to decide on their own treatment. Unless they're pregnant.


  • #69
    Lux23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    I think if everyone received the same information that the Citizen's Assembly did then Ireland would most likely vote for a more liberal regime. You can't listen to the very personal stories shared by women and their partners and then honestly say you would deny that person an abortion in practice.


  • #70
    Yara Colossal Lightning
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Yara Colossal Lightning


    seamus wrote: »
    As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

    The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

    If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

    Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

    Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

    That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

    I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

    Yes and so much of it is around the convenience to hospital staff e.g a consultant trying to induce, which would cause later issues, because he's going on holiday tomorrow. One woman was in the news a few months back because she lost her baby as the hospital insisted on some procedure with no reason given though she begged them not to do it.
    It's ridiculous and it's also a shame it's being overshadowed by the abortion aspect, even though that obviously needs to be voted on too.


  • #71
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Why people get annoyed about the term foetus is because it is used to devalue, to dehumanise.

    How nice, but I was not asking about the term fetus. I was talking about YOUR bringing up the term "bunch of cells". Why did you shift to fetus in this reply?

    However the term "fetus" is not used to dehumanize, but to call a spade a spade. If some person X has their attempt to humanize something before it's due by person Y using the CORRECT terminology then it is person X with the problem, not Y.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    You dont go to a foetus shower you go to a baby shower a pregnant woman doesnt say i can feel the foetus, she says I can feel the baby.

    Yea so what? People use incorrect terminology when they are being driven by narrative rather than accuracy. This is a common human linguistic feature and in no way special to abortion or pregnancy. We also give boats names and gender (almost always female) but we do not think they are alive or ACTUALLY female. We are a narrative driven species.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Use of a purely medical term is dishonest and agenda ridden.

    You have that exactly backwards I am afraid. Calling the fetus a baby is the agenda ridden narrative in this context. It is done by people who lack ANY arguments as to what is wrong with abortion at 12 or 16 weeks in order to attain their goals by emotional and emotive means instead.

    When one sits down and swims past the seas of emotive terminology and simply ask on an intellectual level "What are rights, what exactly is it we are assigning them to, and does the fetus at 12/16 weeks have the things thus identified" they come up with nothing. Diddly. Squat. Nichts. Nadda. Zilch.

    At which point emotive terms like "baby" and "human" and "murder" and so forth are all they have without ever stopping to explain exactly which of the many contextual meanings of words like "Human" and "life" and "alive" they actually mean.

    Because when it comes to morality and ethics, then for a lot of people using words like "Human" and "alive" what they are actually referring to is person hood, which is routed in things that the fetus lacks ENTIRELY like sentience and consciousness at those stages of development.

    So yes I am sure there is agenda and linguistic tricks at play on both sides of this issue, I would never deny it. But it is not quite as you have summarized it at all by any means.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    People don't refer to their cardiac arrest they talk of their heart attack. People don't talk about their ductal carcinoma, they speak of their breast cancer.

    Sure, and in those two contexts there is no emotive agenda in play. So the analogy does not really hold much utility here from you.

    In the context of abortion however when we use words like "baby" we are bring, willfully for many, to mind the image we all have of babies.... which generally tend to be fully formed and developed and, for many, born.

    Even the people trotting out photographs of fetuses at anti abortion stands know this and hence they tend to trot out photographs of fetal development that is a lot later in the process than when 90%+ of abortions by choice on our planet actually occur.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    If I no longer want to look after my dependent father should I have the right to choose to kill him.

    Nope, because he is an entity that has attained the faculty of consciousness and sentience. And from the moment that faculty arose in him, until the moment it dies (dies, not become impaired before you trot out the usual "What about people in a coma" thing I often get) he is a moral entity for whom we should have moral and ethical concern.

    A fetus at 12-16 weeks however not only lacks said faculty but also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it. The analogy I often use here is that if sentience and consciousness are radio waves, then at 12-16 weeks we are discussing a point when not only are the waves absent, the broad casting tower have not even been constructed yet.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The right to life is basic, fundamental, inalienable.

    Sure, but for who/what exactly. Clearly the cows we kill for burgers, or the trees we chop down for paper, or the insects we annihilate en masse with insecticides do not have it.

    So the question becomes what is it humans have EXACTLY that affords them that right? And, when you identify EXACTLY what that is..... and why you think you have identified the correct attributes(s)........ then does the fetus being aborted have what you identified?

    If you find the answer to that question to be "no" then some serious introspection on your position on abortion would seem instantly warranted.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    If we are going to debate this issue for the next 9 months we need to respect each others different views and opinions.

    There is, to my mind, only one form of respect that one can offer the ideas and opinions of others. And that is to engage with them in open intellectual discourse, and discuss the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning upon which the opinions and ideas are based.

    That, I trust you will agree, is exactly what I do here.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I believe that there is support in this country for abortion in limited instances such as rape and FFA.

    Alas I do not think it workable in the cases of rape. How is rape to be ascertained?

    Do we require a guilty conviction? If so what of all the women who WERE raped but their assailant was found innocent, or otherwise not convicted?

    Do we just require an accusation then? Then would that not incentivise false accusations?

    Or do we just take the women's word for it? And if so, how would that FUNCTIONALLY be any different from the "abortion by choice" many here want to campaign for?

    And ethically how can it be justified? If we think that the fetus should not be aborted because it has, as you seem to believe, a "Right to life" then why should it ethically LOSE that right to life because of a crime committed NOT by it on someone who is also not it?

    What precedent do we have for X losing rights, let alone their core fundamental right to life, when Y commits a crime on Z?

    Thankfully not my problem given I have yet to be shown a coherent basis as to why a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks should be considered to have a right to life. But for those who DO think it has one, then convicting it to death for a crime it is neither the victim or nor the perpetrator of..... would seem like an ethical quandary to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    And here we go!! Can we not have any thread on this discussion that doesn't turn into page long posts full of crap?


  • #73
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    seamus wrote: »
    As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

    The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

    If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

    Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

    Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

    That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

    I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

    This simply isnt true though. If the 8th was as restrictive as some people seem to think it is, it would be the first matter discussed between doctor and patient. It isnt. My wife has has 2 children. Any hospital appointment she went to during both pregnancies I was there with her. At no point was the 8th mentioned, and we made plenty of decisions be it birth plan or after care. She had gallstones removed during her first pregnancy - no mention of the 8th to either of us before, during or after surgery.

    I think everyone has a responsibility to educate themselves before spouting sensationalist claptrap. Otherwise this campaign is going to be appalling.


  • #74
    Hooks Golf Handicap
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 233 ✭✭Hooks Golf Handicap


    pilly wrote: »
    And here we go!! Can we not have any thread on this discussion that doesn't turn into page long posts full of crap?

    Truth, who'd even read that novel above, just post a link to your blog.

    I'm voting Yes to everything, 6th trimester abortions, the lot


  • #75
    PeterParker957
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »
    Truth, who'd even read that novel above, just post a link to your blog.

    I'm voting Yes to everything, 6th trimester abortions, the lot

    If there's no limit to when an abortion can take place I've a fair long list of people whos mammys we need to have a chat with!


  • #76
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    pilly wrote: »
    And here we go!! Can we not have any thread on this discussion that doesn't turn into page long posts full of crap?


    Wait till the Anti-Choice re-regs show up ....


  • #77
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    The citizens assembly came out with very extreme proposals, when it came to options they went for the most extreme in every vote.
    The people on the Assembly were overwhelmingly very liberal:
    64% voted that no reason be needed for an abortion.
    8% voted that there should be no term limit.


  • #78
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The people on the Assembly were overwhelmingly very liberal
    It makes me laugh because those on the pro-choice campaigning side were also voicing concern about the conservative bias in the assembly.

    It's fair to say that if everyone thinks the assembly was biased the wrong way, then it was probably bang on the money in the spread of people it engaged.

    People having voted in a way that seems liberal, doesn't mean those people are actually liberals.

    Believe it or not, people can have complex opinions on a range of topics and don't fit into simple buckets of liberal and conservative.

    The only difference between the assembly and the general population was that extreme voices and appeals to emotion were excluded. The assembly heard hard facts. Something that will be largely lacking in the public debate.


  • #79
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    seamus wrote: »
    ..................

    The assembly heard hard facts.

    There aren't many really

    1. Abortion is available to those with the money and ability to get on a plane to the UK or elsewhere or those who can "do it at home"

    2. Time for the country to grow up, take the training wheels off


  • #80
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    seamus wrote: »
    It makes me laugh because those on the pro-choice campaigning side were also voicing concern about the conservative bias in the assembly.

    It's fair to say that if everyone thinks the assembly was biased the wrong way, then it was probably bang on the money in the spread of people it engaged.

    People having voted in a way that seems liberal, doesn't mean those people are actually liberals.

    Believe it or not, people can have complex opinions on a range of topics and don't fit into simple buckets of liberal and conservative.

    The only difference between the assembly and the general population was that extreme voices and appeals to emotion were excluded. The assembly heard hard facts. Something that will be largely lacking in the public debate.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/citizens-assembly-backs-abortion-rights-in-wide-range-of-circumstances-1.3058170
    At the request of the members of the assembly, a category of abortion in the case of socioeconomic circumstances was included. Abortion was supported by 72 per cent of members of the assembly in that case.

    The outcome is a recommendation far more liberal than many observers had expected.


  • #81
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    One would have to be living in lala land if they believe a lot of opinion was changed at the citizens assembly.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    One would have to be living in lala land if they believe a lot of opinion was changed at the citizens assembly.
    Because it doesn't suit your bias?


  • #83
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/citizens-assembly-backs-abortion-rights-in-wide-range-of-circumstances-1.3058170

    Not clear what you are trying to say with this link and quote but it would seem that this line from seamus:

    "People having voted in a way that seems liberal, doesn't mean those people are actually liberals."

    Is perfectly in line with this line from your quote:

    "The outcome is a recommendation far more liberal than many observers had expected."

    But as you simply dumped the link and quote without any text from yourself, it is not clear at all what your point (if any) is here??


  • #84
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    seamus wrote: »
    Because it doesn't suit your bias?

    No, because views on abortion are held very strongly on both sides.


  • #85
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    keano_afc wrote: »
    This simply isnt true though. If the 8th was as restrictive as some people seem to think it is, it would be the first matter discussed between doctor and patient. It isnt. My wife has has 2 children. Any hospital appointment she went to during both pregnancies I was there with her. At no point was the 8th mentioned, and we made plenty of decisions be it birth plan or after care. She had gallstones removed during her first pregnancy - no mention of the 8th to either of us before, during or after surgery.

    I think everyone has a responsibility to educate themselves before spouting sensationalist claptrap. Otherwise this campaign is going to be appalling.

    How old are your children?

    Mine were all born pre amendment, I had full say in my care. Speaking to women who have had children since and many have been unable to have the care they want because of the amendment. There have been high profile cases of court cases due to the 8th. Just because you have not personally been affected don't dismiss those who have.


  • #86
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Not clear what you are trying to say with this link and quote but it would seem that this line from seamus:

    "People having voted in a way that seems liberal, doesn't mean those people are actually liberals."

    Is perfectly in line with this line from your quote:

    "The outcome is a recommendation far more liberal than many observers had expected."

    But as you simply dumped the link and quote without any text from yourself, it is not clear at all what your point (if any) is here??

    The newspaper that campaigns for abortion reported the outcome as being far more liberal than expected.
    The outcome was so liberal that legislators are not going to be proposing everything that was recommended as it would be a definite fail.


  • #87
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,147 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    How nice, but I was not asking about the term fetus. I was talking about YOUR bringing up the term "bunch of cells".

    I didn't bring up the term bunch of cells. I was replying to a previous poster.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    However the term "fetus" is not used to dehumanize, but to call a spade a spade. If some person X has their attempt to humanize something before it's due by person Y using the CORRECT terminology then it is person X with the problem, not Y.

    Why call a wanted baby a baby and an unwanted baby a foetus. Because this is the reality.The the medical terminology is used to suit a certain narrative and emotional terminology is then used at other times in support of exactly the same argument.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yea so what? People use incorrect terminology when they are being driven by narrative rather than accuracy. This is a common human linguistic feature and in no way special to abortion or pregnancy. We also give boats names and gender (almost always female) but we do not think they are alive or ACTUALLY female. We are a narrative driven species.

    Grasping at straws here. We are not voting on scuttling ships.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You have that exactly backwards I am afraid. Calling the fetus a baby is the agenda ridden narrative in this context. It is done by people who lack ANY arguments as to what is wrong with abortion at 12 or 16 weeks in order to attain their goals by emotional and emotive means instead.

    When one sits down and swims past the seas of emotive terminology and simply ask on an intellectual level "What are rights, what exactly is it we are assigning them to, and does the fetus at 12/16 weeks have the things thus identified" they come up with nothing.



    No, foetus is used in an agenda ridden narrative because you cant argue why to kill a 16 week old baby is ok but a 16 week 2 day old baby is wrong.

    This is your opinion. Many people unambiguously believe that 12/16 week old babies have the right to life.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Because when it comes to morality and ethics, then for a lot of people using words like "Human" and "alive" what they are actually referring to is person hood, which is routed in things that the fetus lacks ENTIRELY like sentience and consciousness at those stages of development.

    We afford rights to other entities without personhood. Why should a 16 week old baby be any different?

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope, because he is an entity that has attained the faculty of consciousness and sentience. And from the moment that faculty arose in him, until the moment it dies (dies, not become impaired before you trot out the usual "What about people in a coma" thing I often get) he is a moral entity for whom we should have moral and ethical concern.

    A fetus at 12-16 weeks however not only lacks said faculty but also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it. The analogy I often use here is that if sentience and consciousness are radio waves, then at 12-16 weeks we are discussing a point when not only are the waves absent, the broad casting tower have not even been constructed yet.

    So would you be happy to afford full human rights to an unborn baby from the moment faculty of consciousness and sentience arises?

    Is a 12 to 16 week baby a moral entity for whom we should have moral and ethical concern?

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So the question becomes what is it humans have EXACTLY that affords them that right?

    Humans are afforded human rights by virtue of being human. Why should we allow a human to live or die simply because they are loved or unloved? Wanted or unwanted?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #88
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The newspaper that campaigns for abortion reported the outcome as being far more liberal than expected.
    The outcome was so liberal that legislators are not going to be proposing everything that was recommended as it would be a definite fail.

    Ah right, that is clearer thank you. None of that came across from you simple dumping the link and the quote there.

    Doubt there was any likelihood either way that they would propose "everything" that was recommended. Regardless of how "liberal" it seems to anyone.

    But I am certainly looking forward to sitting down and reading whatever it is the proposals and actual vote turns out to be.


  • #89
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    eviltwin wrote: »
    How old are your children?

    Mine were all born pre amendment, I had full say in my care. Speaking to women who have had children since and many have been unable to have the care they want because of the amendment. There have been high profile cases of court cases due to the 8th. Just because you have not personally been affected don't dismiss those who have.

    Both have been born within the last 7 years.

    I'm not dismissing anything. I'm saying a blanket statement like "the 8th affects womens rights" is sensationalist and untrue. We were able to chose to have invasive surgery while my wife was 3 months pregnant. At no point was the 8th mentioned. If its so restrictive, it would have been the first thing we had to consider.


  • #90
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Both have been born within the last 7 years.

    I'm not dismissing anything. I'm saying a blanket statement like "the 8th affects womens rights" is sensationalist and untrue. We were able to chose to have invasive surgery while my wife was 3 months pregnant. At no point was the 8th mentioned. If its so restrictive, it would have been the first thing we had to consider.

    It's not for you or your wife to consider, it's matter for the hospital and their legal team. While it's great your wife was able to get the intervention she wanted you can bet if there was a grey area in that intervention it wouldn't have been as straightforward.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,958 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    isn't it quite ironic that the repeal the 8th campaign, which now seems to have morphed into an abortion on demand campaign from being a "protect the pregnant" movement, may actually get what they now want and a referendum to have abortion on demand, which by going too far may fail.

    Ironic too, that the ultra conservative do nothing agenda, might end up with the best outcome from just having a vote on unrestricted abortion on demand, which looks like it'll fail by a margin.


Advertisement