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

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

Not the point. The point was I was discussing what you said about the phrase, not about the word "fetus". And I fear conversation can only break down if we are not talking about the same thing at the same time. I replied to you talking about a "cluster of calls" not to you talking about "fetus".

I am happy to talk about both, but jumping to one when I reply to the other is only going to confuse.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why call a wanted baby a baby and an unwanted baby a foetus. Because this is the reality.

That is simple and I answered it already. We are a narrative driven species. And when a woman wants to bring it to term and have a fetus she, and those around her, become invested in that goal. And they subjectively, emotionally, and linguistically display their investment in that goal by what terminology they use.

They are technically wrong in the terminology they use, but in the context they use it no one actually cares. Nor should they.

There is nothing surprising, mysterious, or special going on there. This is simply how we use language.

But when we sit down to have serious discussions on serious topics it pays in THAT context to use accurate terminology. Especially where and when inaccurate terminology is being smuggled in with an agenda.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

Nor did I suggest we were, so you seem to be intent on rebutting something I am not actually espousing. Which again is not really going to achieve much but the break down of conversation.

The point however was that we use language all the time in ways that are suggestive of things we do not actually think true. This is just how we use language. And in most contexts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But context is everything. Especially in language.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

Except it IS a fetus so the only agenda being used there is to use language accurately. An agenda I readily admit to.

However you are putting forward a red herring problem that is not actually a problem. We can not for example argue why drinking alcohol at 17.99999 is wrong but at 18 it is ok. Or why sexual consent is not possible at 16.999999 but at 17 it is.

We have "temporal lines in the sand" in a lot of laws that pedantically make absolutely not sense at all. But that does NOT mean we can not argue their reasoning and utility and I have argued it at nauseating length, and am more than happy to do so again (and again and again if asked to).

So it is certainly comical to be told I can not argue something I am in fact on record as arguing quite often. This serves just to show how wrong you are.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

This is your opinion. Many people unambiguously believe that 12/16 week old babies have the right to life.

I know they do. I never once suggested, implied or even hinted otherwise.

What I have not seen EVER however is any reasoning for that position being offered.

Now whether you agree with MY reasoning about abortion cut offs or not....... I certainly can never be accused of not having presented (repeatedly, and at length) the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning upon which it is based!

I am VERY open to the idea that we should afford a right to life to the fetus at 12 or 16 weeks. But until an argument supporting that position is put before me, then being open to it is all I can and will be.

It has not been done. Least of all by you.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

Which entities and on what basis? When you can answer those two questions I can answer yours. What I expect is however that when you answer those two questions you will find you already have the answer to yours.

However lest I be falsely accused of dodging the question I will answer it all the same. I think we afford rights to entities based on the level of consciousness and sentience the species they represent is capable of. We afford, for example, more rights (or at least more moral and ethical concern) to a dog than a beetle. And to a beetle than an amoeba. And if you ask people which they would save running out of a burning building..... a single cat..... or a box with 500 spiders..... my suspicion is that most people will say the cat showing that an instance of cat sentience is not only more than an instance of spider sentience in their mind...... but more than multiples of it.

Yet we still happily hack down trees, annihilate insects, and chop up cattle with nary a thought to their right to life really. So again I have to ask you "What entities and on what basis" in the hope you actually try to answer it.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

That is my position yes, in a nutshell. I am sure there are contextual caveats and the like.... as nothing is ever THAT black and White..... but I would say that that is one of the more accurate summations of my position. Would that I myself were able to be so short in explaining myself rather than long walls of text

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

No because not only is there no reason to think they have the faculty of sentience or consciousness..... many of the things we consider to be pre requisites of same are also not even formed yet.

It is, like I said above, like being worried about radio waves not only when the radio broadcast tower is not turned on.......... it has not even been BUILT.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Humans are afforded human rights by virtue of being human.

But "human" is a term too effete to really tell another person what you mean there. I would say the EXACT same sentence, but likely mean an ENTIRELY different thing.

One could for example simply mean that is has Human DNA. A very valid use of the word "human". But one not so easy to argue rights philisophically off. What is so special about human DNA per se compared to any other?

Or one could mean for example "Human" as in a human person, a sentience and conscious entity. A fetus at 12 weeks, or a zygote, simply does not qualify.

Or one could mean something else entirely. I have a phrase I think I invented, but possible stole which is that "When a word means too much, it ends up meaning too little".

So you would probably need to unpack your meaning a little more because as it stands the sentence is not one I can agree with OR disagree with.

keano_afc wrote: »

I'm saying a blanket statement like "the 8th affects womens rights" is sensationalist and untrue.

How is it untrue?

A single example where your wife's rights don't appear to have been affected doesn't disprove it.

However, a single example where a woman's rights have been stripped from them, does prove it.

The eighth amendment gives pregnant women less rights than non-pregnant people. That's a fact. There are many examples which prove it.

What's worse is that the 8th also causes arms to stretch out and try to further restrict rights, even where the 8th does not apply. Such as: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/courts-cant-force-women-to-undergo-csections-judge-rules-35183977.html

Or the numerous examples through the years of women who've tried to get a surgical sterilisation and been turned away because they were too young or didn't have children.

A thought experiment for yourself keano:

Go back to your wife being in the throes of labour. Dilating, 5cm maybe, but not yet about to pop. She tells you that she's changed her mind and she's going home to give birth.

Are you 100% confident that the hospital staff would let her go?

pilly wrote: »

What you're not getting though nozz is no-one is reading your posts because they're too long winded.

Your points are usually good ones but why make ten points in one post?

People are just skimming them, not reading, it's not the library we're in.

I'm reading them with interest.

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

As above, that 8% was actually of the 64%, so 5% went for the most extreme vote.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

That's what I'm saying - is that abortion should be provided in Ireland, without restrictions. That way the numbers of women who want to have abortions will stay the same - the vast majority of women who want to, will still have an abortion in the first trimester, and the number of women who avail of late-term abortion will still be less than 1% of those women who avail of abortion.

It's true too that a lot of women are mentally torturing themselves because of the abuse and guilt piled onto them not just by pro-life activists, but by people much closer to home so to speak such as their partners or their family and friends, and indeed by themselves, because of the social stigma of abortion. There's really not a whole lot can be done about that, only as I said for them to be provided with as much support as possible. I don't know if that even will be possible given the dire state of our mental health services in this country already though.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Yes, absolutely it's reasonable to assume some of them would avail of abortion services, but that's not the point. I agree with you that it's about options, but it's about options that every woman who finds herself pregnant should have equal access to regardless of their means, regardless of terms and conditions. When women who face this decision know that there are options available to them, then they aren't as immediately given to distress and are able to think much more clearly about their options, thereby reducing the mental distress they often experience when they find they are pregnant and don't want to be. If they want to remain pregnant and give birth, then that's a different matter and they should be given the same support too whatever their needs are.

gctest50 wrote: »

That 8% was actually of the 64%, so 5% went for leaving it to be between a woman and her doctor

And they should be on a register.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's what I'm saying - is that abortion should be provided in Ireland, without restrictions. That way the numbers of women who want to have abortions will stay the same - the vast majority of women who want to, will still have an abortion in the first trimester, and the number of women who avail of late-term abortion will still be less than 1% of those women who avail of abortion.

There are no absolute human rights. The right to food, the right to shelter, the right to life, the right to marry, all of them, they come with caveats, restrictions and exceptions.

Similarly, the right to have an abortion is not an unlimited or unrestricted right. Therefore, your position that abortion should be provided without restrictions is unparalleled.

Fundamentally, it ignores the rights of the unborn/fetus/baby/whatever you call it yourself. Now, the rights of the unborn are not equal to the right of the woman, but they do exist, and while they may be limited, they should be acknowledged and respected as they do limit the right to an abortion. The rights of the father, the responsibilities to society and medical ethics also have to be taken into account in a very complex debate.

In my opinion, this balancing of competing rights is best served by an arrangements that allows for unrestricted abortion for the first trimester or thereabouts, restricted abortion for the second trimester or thereabouts (mother's health, genetic disorders etc.) but no abortion for the third trimester. This represents a compromise between all of the different rights and obligations and allows for reasonable decision-making time for the mother. I would be guided by medical advice in terms of the limits.

eviltwin wrote: »

Who should be on a register?

Those who agree to no restrictions on abortion with regard to reason or gestational age.

gctest50 wrote: »

What would you title this register ?

Those with no humanity

/polite

eviltwin wrote: »

Why would you want a register of people's opinions? What would be the purpose?

What if I wanted to hire a babysitter or send my babs to a creche? I certainly wouldn't want any of that 5% near her.

thee glitz wrote: »

Those who agree to no restrictions on abortion with regard to reason or gestational age.




Those with no humanity

/polite

Never mind /polite , we can all deal with what you want to say

What would you title this register ?

Register of ... ????

eviltwin wrote: »

Why? Do you think a person who has a liberal view of abortion would pose a risk to her or something ?

Some have a liberal view of abortion, others apparently are devoid of regard for human life.

gctest50 wrote: »

Never mind /polite , we can all deal with what you want to say

What would you title this register ?

I might call actuality call it that, a subset of scumbags.

gctest50 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean

What name do you want to put on it ?

Gonna go with "Those devoid of regard for the value of human life".