Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

mrkiscool2 · 20-11-2017 12:24AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

No, as I said I won't force her to give birth under threat of legal punishment. I can't speak of what anyone else would think of such a woman, only for myself.

On this though. Like, if you make abortions illegal in Ireland but allow woman to travel, then what happens is you form an unfair law against women how can't afford to travel. If they can't afford to travel, they are most likely going to struggle to provide fully for that child when it is born. And if they can't provide for that child properly, that child will be more likely to be in poverty for the rest of it's life. Not granting women abortions basically leads to a viscous cycle of poverty and crime.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 12:26AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

No, as I said I won't force her to give birth under threat of legal punishment.

But you would ostracize her nevertheless, which tells me you are lying.

As why would someone ostracize a person for doing something with their own body, if they genuinely fully believed in whole bodily integrity?

That makes zero sense.

Would be like someone saying they fully supported homosexual relationships..... but they'd ostracize any of their friends that had one.

uck51js9zml2yt · 20-11-2017 12:32AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

I am one of the insane according to Pete.

I fully believe in whole bodily integrity and would not force any woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want for any reason.

But do I approve of late term abortions? no....they make me feel sick. Pre 16 weeks I would be utterly indifferent. If someone made a decision to abort a healthy baby, that could be delivered immediately, for social reasons I doubt i would associate with that person.

Still won't legally force someone to give birth though.

A question for you. What makes the difference between an abortion at 15 weeks 6 days and 16 weeks 1 day?

GritBiscuit · 20-11-2017 12:34AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is a decision that would render a fundamental right in the existing constitution void, not a fundamental change to the constitution?

If it is decided by a referendum that the unborn does not have a right to life (which is the case in most other European countries where they have more relaxed legislation regarding abortion), then how is the 8th amendment still applicable when the State no longer has an obligation to vindicate and protect the right to life of the unborn as equal to that of the pregnant woman?

The 8th amendment to the Constitution recognises the right to life of mother and unborn as equal. If you vote to remove the equality, you have in effect, repealed the 8th. You said;

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but then that could be challenged as repugnant to the Constitution

Legislation could never be viewed as repugnant if by public referendum Article 8 was repealed from the Constitution...only if abortion legislation was pushed through without first repealing the 8th.

While Article 41.2 certainly has less relevance than it once did, it can't just be assumed it is a part of the Constitution that is routinely ignored and thus the same can be done with the 8th, which is what I think you are getting at? While I'd be fully in agreement that the Constitution is very much an article of it's day and many of the provisions reflect that, Article 41.2 has affect in equity, land law, divorce and social relief/payments/welfare. Total reform of the Constitution is really what is required - it's one of the negative sides to having a document over a uncodified constitution.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Could you simplify what you mean here for me any small bit? I'm having trouble understanding it unfortunately.

As the primary source of Irish law the Constitution would have to be brought in line with Committee recommendations or the Irish government risk facing further awards of damages...not because the ECHR will refuse Ireland a margin of appreciation but because the UN Human Rights Committee will find restrictive Irish legislation lacking and thus infringing on other Articles - in the cases of both Mellet & Whelan I believe they were related to the right not to be subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment - ie the lack of legislation on abortion can make the domestic process of fighting for abortion under other stated or unenumerated rights so lengthy as to to be completely impractical.

captbarnacles · 20-11-2017 12:42AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But you would ostracize her nevertheless, which tells me you are lying.

As why would someone ostracize a person for doing something with their own body, if they genuinely fully believed in whole bodily integrity?

That makes zero sense.

Would be like someone saying they fully supported homosexual relationships..... but they'd ostracize any of their friends that had one.

Eh? none of that makes any sense at all.

I believe in fidelity to your partner, however I don't want legal punishment for someone who cheats. I think less of people who do cheat on their spouse but that would vary on their motivation and circumstances. This is what only I personally think though so only a matter for me really.

Adding this bit: saying that if you believe in something you automatically want legislation in place to make it so is nutty.

This is simple to understand.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 01:00AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

I believe in fidelity to your partner, however I don't want legal punishment for someone who cheats.

Yes, but we are talking about something which is already illegal.

..saying that if you believe in something you automatically want legislation in place to make it so is nutty.

Eh, I never said nor implied such a thing.

Again, we are talking about something that is illegal to do and comparing it with relatively trivial issues like infidelity in no way explains your contradiction.

You claim out of one side of your mouth that you fully believe in whole bodily integrity, but yet then out of the other say you would ostracize a friend of yours who exercised the very thing it is that you say you fully support.

captbarnacles · 20-11-2017 01:05AM

No, I support their right to do it, this is entirely different.

What does the legality have to do with it? legal or not won't change my opinion on it.

volchitsa · 20-11-2017 01:09AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, but we are talking about something which is already illegal.

Eh, I never said nor implied such a thing.

Again, we are talking about something that is illegal to do and comparing it with relatively trivial issues like infidelity in no way explains your contradiction.

You claim out of one side of your mouth that you fully believe in whole bodily integrity, but yet then out of the other say you would ostracize a friend of yours who exercised the very thing it is that you say you fully support.

Drug taking is illegal. I happen to think that this fuels criminal gangs and has very little positive effect in reducing levels of drug taking in society, and that most soft drugs should be legalized.

Doesn't mean I'd want to see my kids hanging out with people taking drugs though.

One eyed Jack · 20-11-2017 01:23AM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

The 8th amendment to the Constitution recognises the right to life of mother and unborn as equal. If you vote to remove the equality, you have in effect, repealed the 8th.

The 8th places an obligation on the State to acknowledge and defend the right to life of the unborn. Rescinding the right to life of the unborn would mean the State no longer has that obligation, while still leaving intact the right to life of people who are born. Without rescinding that right to life of the unborn, repealing the 8th amendment leaves the right to life of the unborn in place, which as you noted later in your post has consequences with regard to other parts of the constitution.

It's not even about regarding the right to life of the unborn as equal to that of the right to life of the mother because in practical terms - they aren't, and the State acknowledges this in the wording of the 8th amendment because it obliges the State to go only so far as what is considered practical, to defend the right to life of the unborn.

This is why I mentioned earlier that there are no agents of the State chasing aeroplanes, but if they become aware of circumstances where the right to life of the unborn is under threat of being violated, then they step in, and we're all aware of circumstances where that has happened, and the outcomes of those cases.

Legislation could never be viewed as repugnant if by public referendum Article 8 was repealed from the Constitution...only if abortion legislation was pushed through without first repealing the 8th.

No I don't mean legislation being repugnant, but rather a change to the constitution itself, as in a proposal to remove the right to life of the unborn. Legislation regarding broadening our abortion laws (and other laws too) could then be much easier to draft, while the State is no longer burdened by it's obligation to defend the right to life of the unborn (because that right would then no longer exist).

While Article 41.2 certainly has less relevance than it once did, it can't just be assumed it is a part of the Constitution that is routinely ignored and thus the same can be done with the 8th, which is what I think you are getting at?

Yeah that's pretty much what I was getting at alright, not that it is ignored as such, but that it demonstrates the aspirational nature of the constitution, that it's full of how the State endeavours to do this, that and the other to fulfil it's obligations society, but in reality, their "get out" clause if you like, is that the State is only obliged to do what is practical, and what is determined as practical in that sense, is left deliberately vague, to excuse the State from meeting it's aspirational obligations (also comes up in relation to education - only "as far as is practicable" mind :rolleyes:).

While I'd be fully in agreement that the Constitution is very much an article of it's day and many of the provisions reflect that, Article 41.2 has affect in equity, land law, divorce and social relief/payments/welfare. Total reform of the Constitution is really what is required - it's one of the negative sides to having a document over a uncodified constitution.

Yes, but if a woman should choose to become a stay-at-home mother for example, she is providing a service to the State, that is contributing to the common good of society, and yet the State in spite of saying it recognises this work and her contribution to society, it actually doesn't, at all! Rather the opposite is true when the State has demonstrated very little, almost no incentives whatsoever, to provide for women who choose to be stay at home mothers, and in fact leaves them with no choice due to economic necessity, to seek paid employment outside the home and place her children in childcare facilities.

As the primary source of Irish law the Constitution would have to be brought in line with Committee recommendations or the Irish government risk facing further awards of damages...not because the ECHR will refuse Ireland a margin of appreciation but because the UN Human Rights Committee will find restrictive Irish legislation lacking and thus infringing on other Articles - in the cases of both Mellet & Whelan I believe they were related to the right not to be subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment - ie the lack of legislation on abortion can make the domestic process of fighting for abortion under other stated or unenumerated rights so lengthy as to to be completely impractical.

Ahh right, I understand what you meant now. That's exactly though why I argue that rescinding the right to life of the unborn would bring our constitution into line with most other European countries because I think is it only Poland, Italy and Malta are the other European countries that confer a right to life on the unborn in their constitutions.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 01:36AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

No, I support their right to do it, this is entirely different.

If you supported someones's right to do something, you wouldn't ostracize a friend that did it.

Let me ask you: if a man murdered his newborn, what kind of sentence would you feel was warranted for him? Quite a hefty one I'd imagine. So why do you respect the right to life of a full term baby outside the womb, but yet not inside it? What makes you think so little of them that you feel the woman they reside in should be able to end their lives without consequences, but yet on the same day, were they to be born, you'd support any person who killed them then, being done for murder.

captbarnacles · 20-11-2017 02:00AM

I mentioned no friend in my post but anyways.

The key point is not born yet.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 02:08AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Drug taking is illegal. I happen to think that this fuels criminal gangs and has very little positive effect in reducing levels of drug taking in society, and that most soft drugs should be legalized.

Doesn't mean I'd want to see my kids hanging out with people taking drugs though.

Yes, but that's not merely a personal choice someone has made to which you are making a judgement call on though, as you'd be fearful of your own kids getting addicted, that would be the justification for you ostracizing said junkies.

Where's the societal negatives of being friends with a woman who has exercised her full body integrity though?

captbarnacles wrote: »

I mentioned no friend in my post but anyways.

Okay, shun then, same principles apply.

The key point is not born yet.

So location should determine one's right to life?

captbarnacles · 20-11-2017 02:26AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So location should determine one's right to life?

This a childish answer Pete.

GritBiscuit · 20-11-2017 02:34AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th places an obligation on the State to acknowledge and defend ...

Repealing the 8th removes subsection 3 from Article 40...it would be impossible to merely rescind the basis for which the amendment was made and leave the rest intact. The choices are retain, remove, replace.

There are no agents of the state chasing aeroplanes because a further addition was made to the subsection relating to travel and information.

The entire Constitution was written in order to enshrine constitutional rights for the good of "people who are born"...the 8th was an additional right bestowed upon the unborn. If you are going to do away with that right, the 8th can be repealed in full.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I don't mean legislation being repugnant....

Changes to the Constitution are purely a matter for referendum. Without majority support it would not pass and thus would not be viewed as repugnant - except for generally repugnant on a personal level with those against repealing the 8th, I suppose...but that wasn't the point you originally made.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah that's pretty much...

It is nigh on impossible to cover all eventualities. Unless specifically covered, Constitutions rely on legislation to specify and "interpret" - that changes with the social and moral landscape of the day. Hence issues with specifically covering and issues when you don't...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, but if...

Pre-40.2 women had little rights with regard to home ownership, divorce, land law, equity, even modern contract or employment law would be effected to a degree...while you can certainly argue that women are forced out of economic necessity into the workplace today, I suspect your definition and context of "recognition" and "provide for" and the legal one differ somewhat and they would point to child benefit and so on as fulfilling their duty to "endeavour to ensure" as well as the legal rights bestowed by 40.2...I happen to agree with you here tho, I think it's outdated and irrelevant. As long as the necessary legislative protections are in place I'd be happy for this one to be repealed as well.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh right...

As above - rescinding the right to life would leave the Irish constitution stating;

The State acknowledges SPOILER]the right to life of the unborn and,[/SPOILER with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

As opposed to repealing the entire amendment and replacing it with something much more suitable.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 02:50AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

This a childish answer Pete.

Nope, it's a perfectly reasoned one.

We're talking about the same human being, at the exact same stage of development, and you would support their "mother" having the right to end their life.......................... but yet later that same day, after having being placed in another location, you'd warrant anyone else that killed them being charged with murder.

How is that not defining a human being's life based on location? Nothing else has changed.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 02:54AM

Oh and on topic, Sofia has a message for anyone considering ending the life of a prenate with Down Syndrome.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLM3yvwh6RV/

One eyed Jack · 20-11-2017 03:10AM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Repealing the 8th removes subsection 3 from Article 40...it would be impossible to merely rescind the basis for which the amendment was made and leave the rest intact. The choices are retain, remove, replace.

...

The entire Constitution was written in order to enshrine constitutional rights for the good of "people who are born"...the 8th was an additional right bestowed upon the unborn. If you are going to do away with that right, the 8th can be repealed in full.

...

As opposed to repealing the entire amendment and replacing it with something much more suitable.

My understanding is that the unborn having the right to life existed in the constitution long before the 8th amendment and was enforced in legislation by The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (interesting timeline of the history of abortion in Ireland here), and that the passing of the 8th amendment only made the States obligation to uphold that right explicit. I agree with you that if that right is done away with, then the 8th can be repealed in full, but in order for that to happen, then we would have to have a referendum on the whether or not the unborn has a right to life in the first place, in order to avoid cases like this -

‘Unborn child’ has significant legal rights, judge rules

I'm also of the understanding that rather than just three options, the Oireachtas committee on abortion are examining six options?

The six options being considered by the Oireachtas abortion committee

None of which appear to include the idea of rescinding the right to life of the unborn, but there is an acknowledgement of what I've been suggesting -

Ms Butler was also asked to comment on the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which refers to the need for “legal protection, before as well as after birth”. However, it is unlikely that this could be relied upon in the Irish courts. In addition, she notes, “a right to life of the unborn is not reflected in the laws” of the majority of the states that signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

As for the idea of simply repealing the 8th amendment, well, there's this -

“In the short term, a simple repeal will provide a degree of immediate legal certainty,” Ms Butler advised the committee. Abortion would remain illegal save in the circumstances prescribed by the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. That act could then be replaced or amended by the Oireachtas.

However, the advice warns that over the longer term, there is a “low” possibility that the courts could find that there is a still a constitutional right to life for the unborn in the unenumerated rights section of the Constitution.

Outlaw Pete · 20-11-2017 03:42AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm also of the understanding that rather than just three options, the Oireachtas committee on abortion are examining six options?

Yes, was reading that a few weeks back:

Option 1: “Repeal simpliciter”

“In the short term, a simple repeal will provide a degree of immediate legal certainty,” Ms Butler advised the committee. Abortion would remain illegal save in the circumstances prescribed by the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. That act could then be replaced or amended by the Oireachtas.

However, the advice warns that over the longer term, there is a “low” possibility that the courts could find that there is a still a constitutional right to life for the unborn in the unenumerated rights section of the Constitution.

Ms Butler was also asked if repeal of the eighth amendment could lead to “abortion on demand”. She advised that it would be highly unlikely that the courts would find attempts by the Oireachtas to legislate for specific grounds for legal abortion to be unconstitutional.

Option 2: Repeal based on published legislation entrenched in the Constitution

Repealing the eighth amendment but accompanying it with legislation on abortion which is “entrenched” in the constitution “provides the greatest degree of legal certainty”, Ms Butler advises.

However, she says that there are two legal difficulties with the approach. One is that including an entire act in the constitution “is likely to prove at best cumbersome and at worse inconsistent with the form and structure and balance of the Constitution”.

In addition, it could not be changed “even in the most minor or technical sense” without a further referendum.

Option 3: Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with the referendum

Publishing legislation along with a referendum is “really a political rather than a legal exercise”, Ms Butler found. There would be no obligation on the Oireachtas to enact the draft legislation, and anyway, there is no guarantee that the legislation would be passed.

Simply publishing the legislation could not be regarded as a legally binding commitment to enact it, the advice says. And even if enacted, it would be open to a future Oireachtas to amend it.

Option 4: Repeal and replacement on specific grounds

This option provides for stipulating on what grounds a woman would be legally permitted an abortion, and is “potentially capable of providing a significant measure of legal certainty”.

However, it would have to be clear whether it is intended to remove the right to life of the unborn in the Constitution or to strike a different balance between the life of the unborn and the life of the mother.

Specific grounds for abortion could be stipulated in the Constitution, the advice says, but “in practice this is likely to prove very difficult as many of the grounds on which it might be anticipated abortion would be permitted (rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality, etc) are inherently difficult concepts with attendant practical problems arising as to how they should be established and to whose satisfaction”.

Option 5: Repeal and replace on broad grounds and/or expressing a re-balancing of rights

This option would also feature many of the difficulties and uncertainties that arise with the previous option, Ms Butler says.

Option 6: Repeal and replace with provision conferring exclusive power on the Oireachtas to regulate

While this would be unusual, there is no legal or constitutional reason why it should not happen.

While this option would limit the power of the courts to interpret legislation on abortion, it would “give the greatest flexibility in terms of the future content of the law since it would be entirely a matter for the Oireachtas” to determine the legislation.

Ms Butler was also asked to comment on the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which refers to the need for “legal protection, before as well as after birth”. However, it is unlikely that this could be relied upon in the Irish courts.

In addition, she notes, “a right to life of the unborn is not reflected in the laws” of the majority of the states that signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

volchitsa · 20-11-2017 05:39AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, but that's not merely a personal choice someone has made to which you are making a judgement call on though, as you'd be fearful of your own kids getting addicted, that would be the justification for you ostracizing said junkies.

Where's the societal negatives of being friends with a woman who has exercised her full body integrity though?

Okay, shun then, same principles apply.

You're just moving the goal posts now, you said it didn't make sense, now you're saying those reasons don't count.

I wouldn't spend time with someone who boasts about how great they and their kids are either, but I don't want that made illegal either.

So location should determine one's right to life?

A fetus isn't just a baby in an unusual place, even at term its circulatory system is still in the opposite direction to that of a baby. To mention just one difference.

But actually your point is exactly what our law currently says : say you're taking a fetus to Liverpool to kill it and the law has nothing to say about that. Except that it's grand.

Triceratops Ballet · 20-11-2017 11:25AM

Outlaw Pete wrote:

We're talking about the same human being, at the exact same stage of development, and you would support their "mother" having the right to end their life.......................... but yet later that same day, after having being placed in another location, you'd warrant anyone else that killed them being charged with murder.

I believe it's already been explained to you that in cases like this, where the pregnancy is almost full term. It is the pregnancy that is terminated. Meaning the child normally delivered by c section is handed off into state services. All pregnancies terminate, either via natural birth, c section, natural or induced abortion.

MrPudding · 20-11-2017 11:40AM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I believe it's already been explained to you that in cases like this, where the pregnancy is almost full term. It is the pregnancy that is terminated. Meaning the child normally delivered by c section is handed off into state services. All pregnancies terminate, either via natural birth, c section, natural or induced abortion.

Of course it has been explained. But it does not fit the narrative he is trying to get across, therefore it is ignored.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo · 20-11-2017 12:33PM

Apologies for the late catch up on the thread! I was called to speak at a conference in Antwerp and only just returned.....

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

no one should have the right to pick and choose what kind of child they have.

Why? The "child" in the sense of personhood and sentience does not exist yet. You are essentially looking at a blue print for a child you are ABOUT to build. I see no reason why someone should not "have the right" to throw it back and wait for a better blue print to arrive.

The problem is in your rhetoric and wording....... "denying a child the right"......... which presupposes the already existing child and also presupposes the existence of an entity WITH rights that are being "denied".

There is no "child", and I have seen no arguments as to why it has "rights" in the first place.

So there is nothing to "deny" them and no one to deny it of either.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I just think it’s too short a jump from one to the other to take the risk

So, slippery slope fallacy then?

A Little Pony wrote: »

Which confirms my own view on how society is going now, the complete lack of ethics, comparing babies in the womb to livestock like the sheep outside my house, unbelievable really but this is the reality now in 2017

So rather than address the content of my post, or the nature of the comparison I make, you just throw your hands up in feux disgust that the comparison even exists, and then essentially run away from the conversation? And while acting in that manner you presume to lecture ME about ethics?

For shame.

There is nothing wrong with the comparison I made, because I was not even comparing the things you just said I was. Rather I was commenting on majority human action in the light of people here acting like "life" is important.

However HAD I made the comparison I actually did not, there would be nothing wrong with that either. Sentience is a thing. The fact that different species appear to have different levels of it is also a thing.

Comparing it across species in order to understand our ethical and moral relationship with the sentience of other living creatures is therefore a VERY valid conversation to have. That you wish to pretend otherwise speaks volumes indeed.

A Little Pony wrote: »

That was the logic of the poster I replied to who thought of it as no different from killing cows

Yet that is not what I said AT ALL. You have put such a spin on my words at this point I am surprised they do not have their own internal gravity.

What I DID say was in response to the concept of "ending life".... pointing out that we are "ending life" all the time. So anyone who wants to make an argument against abortion has the onus of arguing why ending THAT life is bad when ending all that OTHER life is ok.

So I in fact DO think it is different to killing cows because cows..... unlike a fetus at 12 weeks gestation, are sentient entities.

end of the road wrote: »

no, they don't know what that more is but have decided that they do, and that the unborn lacks it because it fits and justifies their agenda.

Nope, quite the opposite. As I said we DO know what it is. The entire concept of morality and ethics appears to center around the one thing the fetus at 12-16 weeks not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks.

Which is the faculty of human consciousness and sentience.

You can pretend that this is about "agenda" all you like, but that will just leave the point unaddressed and not rebutted.

end of the road wrote: »

oh but it is moraly wrong. and if you want to justify it to be moraly right it is on you to prove that it is

Nope. Until such time as you offer arguments for it being morally wrong, there is no onus on anyone to prove it "right". It does not HAVE to be right. It merely has to be morally neutral.

It seems the sole argument you have to offer as to it being morally wrong....... is merely to ASSERT it is morally wrong and leave it at that? You got anything better than that to offer or is that literally to be it from you?

end of the road wrote: »

the father is half of the DNA of that child. i know that idea seems to be slowly been thrown out the window these days but it will never change the reality.

I do not think I have seen a SINGLE person question that reality however. What they are questioning is the moral relevance of it. Something people like yourself appear unwilling or unable to address.

nozzferrahhtoo · 20-11-2017 12:34PM

People have already taken you up on your disgusting, egregious and entirely misogynistic comparison of women to children who do not know what is good for them. So I will reply to other stuff than that horror.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

As I said, abortion may be legal but it doesn't mean it right.

Sure, and your simple dislike of it does not mean it is WRONG either. So rather than tell us what things do NOT mean it is "right" or "wrong" perhaps you might get around to telling us what things do?

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

While we're at it, we may as well pass a law to kill our old people as well. They are just so inconvenient and a huge drain on resources!

You can campaign for that if you wish, but given (unlike the near totality of fetal choice based abortions) those old people are sentience agents, I will not be joining you on that campaign.

Giving people the right to choose what to do with non-sentient agents inside their own body however.... is a campaign I can get 100% behind.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

It's a sad indictment of our nation when we do everything that's right " in our own eyes" with no reference to an external morality.

What "external morality" are you referring to exactly? External to who or what? Who or what decides it?

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

I wonder how many people who are pro abortion would be up in arms over unwanted pups getting drowned!

If the puppies have the faculty of consciousness or sentience then I would be MORE "up in arms" over it than I would the termination of a fetus at 12 weeks which is the sentience equivalent of a rock at that point.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

In light of these advances where do we draw the line at killing an unborn baby?

You have been told this again and again: Sentience.

I fully expect science to progress to the point where women and their wombs are theoretically superfluous to requirements at all. That is to say: Viability from conception.

This is not a problem for my pro choice views as viability is not the basis of them.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

So you're saying that the embryo isn't human life?? That it doesn't have genetic coding or traits that are human!

Not what the user said at all, and in fact that EXACT distortion was one I pulled up on already in the thread.

This constant pretense that people using words like "human" and "baby" with care are actually making some biological taxonomy statements is so wantonly and egregiously dishonest it really erodes any credibility anything you say potentially holds.

If I say "that seed is not a tree" would you pretend I said it was a different species too?

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

So will any of the pro abortionist like to tell me when a fetus becomes a baby?

If they do could you introduce them to me because in all my years working in and around the subject of abortion I have yet to meet a single "pro abortionist".

What I have met is PLENTY of people who do not get the response they want in online forums who switch to that term in order to misrepresent others.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

So I assume you never referred to any of your children as babies when you were pregnant.

There is no reason why they shouldn't. You do know human language is contextual right? And having an issue with the incorrect use of a term in one CONTEXT does not automatically carry to others?

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

A question for you. What makes the difference between an abortion at 15 weeks 6 days and 16 weeks 1 day?

The EXACT same thing that makes the difference between a teen at 17 years and 364 days old and a teen at 18 years and 1 day old going in to buy alcohol. Or similar with a teen consenting to sex.

The "difference" being that it is just common to see laws and procedures and such things have a temporal based timing in their implementation.

There is no REAL reason why a teen should not be able to consent to sex or buy alcohol the day before their birthday. IDEALLY we would live in a world where every single case would be taken and considered on it's individual merits.

But we do not live in the ideal world. We live in a world where we often need temporal limits written into our laws. I have made my peace with that fact. You should too.

nozzferrahhtoo · 20-11-2017 12:35PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who claim to be pro-choice, that it is up to the pregnant woman herself, but only up until such a time as they personally are comfortable with, are strawmanning themselves

The more coherent position I hear on pro choice is one that centers on judging morality and ethics by the effects of the choices of one sentient entity on another. As someone said to be before for example, my total right to swing my fists around my surroundings end at your face.

So the pro-choice position is that a woman should be free to make any choices that do not affect a blob of matter not just slightly but entirely devoid of the faculties of sentience and consciousness.

As soon as your biology informs us such a faculty exists however it is no longer about "her body her choice". Her choices, like my fists at your face, can now be morally and ethically argued to be limited by our moral and ethical concern for a second entity.

And people like Outlaw pete can scream "hypocrisy" at that in order to not address it, but it is an ENTIRELY coherent and cogent and logical position to hold.

But what the argument could NOT be represented as, in anything but a move of complete straw man and distortion, is to suggest that such people are only happy with abortion up to a point merely "such a time as they personally are comfortable with".

Certainly however if someone were to advocate for allowing women to terminate their pregnancy at ANY stage in the process.... then one would need to be A) Very clear as to what that termination means and would entail and

if it meant ending the life or harming the well being of a child in the, lets say, 30 to 40 week period what the arguments would be for allowing such a thing.

You have not been clear on either of those in the past alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Arguments can easily be made against abortion from any number of perspectives

Tell THEM that then because so far if you delete the people who just argue against it by showing pictures of the fetus......... and then delete the people who argue against it merely by use of emotive words like "murder" and "eugenics"........ and of course the god based arguments............ then I am not sure there are any arguments left.

If they are so easy to make, why am I not seeing any other than those three approaches above?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if a woman decides to call it a baby, then I assume you'd respect that and wouldn't be trying to tell her what you think it should be referred to as.

If it became relevant or useful to question her use of the word, I would for sure. I would not just do it for the sake of it.

For example I made a post on the "experiences of abortion" thread which also mentioned miscarriage. Often in relatively early stages of the pregnancy.

And when working through the grief of losing a "baby" I have found it quite useful indeed to separate out the term "baby" slowly and delicately with them from the social and narrative based use of it that is the source of most of their grief........ and the reality of what it was that they actually lost.

It is not a fix all fix for that grief, but certainly a vast dilution of it, as they then grieve for the loss of narrative and future they had emotionally invested themselves in more so than the lost of an actual "baby".

So yes, done right and done delicately and done for well intentioned reasons there is often very good argument for NOT respecting their choice of words at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to get hung up on insisting someone use any certain terminology for my benefit when it's their perspective is what's important.

Nor are you required to. Where people DO get "hung up" on it, and rightfully so, is when people are contriving to use the wrong terminology for reasons of propaganda and emotion in debate.

If someone wants to call it a "baby" or a "splufunky-wonk" they are more than welcome to without any word from me. The moment they do it to contrive to influence debate and create "arguments from emotion" fallacies.... then speaking up and calling them on it is the right thing to do.

nozzferrahhtoo · 20-11-2017 12:35PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You see, what I've just shown there is the typical hypocrisy of the prochoice.

No, you really have not. You are just doing your usual thing of presenting a vast oversimplification of the "pro choice" position, screaming some phrase at it (in this case "hypocrisy") and then running away.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But when it comes down to it, they are all just hollow mantras as they themselves will have a gestational age at which they would not want elective abortions legal at.

And there is nothing wrong with that either, if there are coherent and clear argument behind their thinking on that cut off. Many of us, myself included, do not simply throw out random numbers about gestational age. We in fact offer long, deeply considered, scientifically and philosophically based, streams of reasoning on how and why we reached the conclusions we hold.

Dismissing all that by screaming "hypocrisy" at it and heading for the door, will not magically dissolve the arguments you can not address / rebut our of existence for you.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Apart from pregnancies that involve babies with a ffa, are there any specific conditions where a pregnancy is likely to cause "permanent damage to a woman's health" as opposed to there being a danger with regards to loss of life? Not saying there's not, just interested in what they might be.

Not entirely sure what you are asking. But what jumped to mind here immediately were the stories of girls in the 10-12 age groups seeking abortions. While not necessarily fatal it was argued there was potential for permanent harm to children that age carrying to term, and giving birth to, babies.

Also jumping to mind are cases where the woman has OTHER problems, the treatment of which can not be carried out while pregnant. Therefore such women would consider seeking an abortion so their own treatment could proceed.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

you'd support a woman procuring an elective abortion the week the "fetus" was due to make their appearance, but you wouldn't (no sane person would) and so cut the bodily integrity rubbish.

Yet there are 2, possibly 3, users of this forum who DO advocate for allowing a woman to terminate their pregnancy at ANY stage in the procedure. You will have to take it up with them though as "Hilary Clinton agrees with me" tends to be the best argument I have PERSONALLY heard from them for allowing it. And also to get them to be clear what they EXACTLY mean by it, such as the difference between termination of the pregnancy and termination of the baby itself. And if the former, at what point is the risk too great to be allowed to try. All questions I never get answers to when I ask. Maybe you will do better.

Their sanity I will leave you to question.

But as someone once said to me, I have the right to swing my fists around as I like.... but that right ends at your face because YOU are also a sentient agent with rights.

So for me, as soon as there is argument to consider the fetus an entity with the faculty of sentience, the 100% free choice of a woman to do what she wants with the fetus HAS to be curtailed. Before that point I literally could not care less what she does with it. No matter how many fingers or toes or moving tongues it happens to have.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not exactly the clump of cells some would have us believe prenatal human babies to be. Of course I''m sure Mr. 'We're Safe To Abort At 24 Weeks' will be along any minute to tell us this baby is just merely "baby shaped" and condescendingly add no doubt how it's understandably that we feel how we do as a result.

It would be nice when you are hiding snide little side jabs at me in a thread if you would consider actually representing my position correctly.

You will find that I say that my sentience based ethics approach to abortion means that we are essentially safe at 20 weeks but after that it gets greyer and greyer.

And I support general choice based abortion only up to 16 weeks because A) the near totality of abortions by choice happen by then so 24 weeks is superfluous to requirements and

24 weeks is morally WAY more grey.

Sorry if the ACTUAL position I hold steps on the toes of the straw man version of it you have so quickly constructed.

What you want to dismiss as merely "condescending" however remains an actual fact. If we want to establish the moral relevance of the entity, it merely being baby shaped is not alone a criteria for doing so. No matter how emotional YOU personally get over that shape, OR that argument, or seeing fetal tongues flopping around to da tunes.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't know of anyone who would see a pregnant woman in that way and sentience is just a shape shifting red herring.

Again your attempts to dismiss the central tenet of other peoples arguments with a simple turn of phrase, rather than addressing it directly, is egregiously dishonest. Sentience is not a red herring at all, it is the very core of the basis for what people think ethics and morality ARE and are FOR.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You claim out of one side of your mouth that you fully believe in whole bodily integrity, but yet then out of the other say you would ostracize a friend of yours who exercised the very thing it is that you say you fully support.

In principle (generally not just related to abortion) I do not see the problem here? There are PLENTY of things I think people should have every right to do, but I would PERSONALLY not want anything to do with them if they did. Is there a point here I am missing, or are you just flailing around in an attempt to create more "hypocrisy" where none actually exists?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh and on topic, Sofia has a message for anyone considering ending the life of a prenate with Down Syndrome.

Help me out here, I do not see a "message". I just see a picture of a child. Is there a message I am missing or are you superimposing YOUR message over a random cherry picked photo?

uck51js9zml2yt · 20-11-2017 02:32PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

People have already taken you up on your disgusting, egregious and entirely misogynistic comparison of women to children who do not know what is good for them. So I will reply to other stuff than that horror.

Sure, and your simple dislike of it does not mean it is WRONG either. So rather than tell us what things do NOT mean it is "right" or "wrong" perhaps you might get around to telling us what things do?

You can campaign for that if you wish, but given (unlike the near totality of fetal choice based abortions) those old people are sentience agents, I will not be joining you on that campaign.

Giving people the right to choose what to do with non-sentient agents inside their own body however.... is a campaign I can get 100% behind.

What "external morality" are you referring to exactly? External to who or what? Who or what decides it?

If the puppies have the faculty of consciousness or sentience then I would be MORE "up in arms" over it than I would the termination of a fetus at 12 weeks which is the sentience equivalent of a rock at that point.

You have been told this again and again: Sentience.

I fully expect science to progress to the point where women and their wombs are theoretically superfluous to requirements at all. That is to say: Viability from conception.

This is not a problem for my pro choice views as viability is not the basis of them.

Not what the user said at all, and in fact that EXACT distortion was one I pulled up on already in the thread.

This constant pretense that people using words like "human" and "baby" with care are actually making some biological taxonomy statements is so wantonly and egregiously dishonest it really erodes any credibility anything you say potentially holds.

If I say "that seed is not a tree" would you pretend I said it was a different species too?

If they do could you introduce them to me because in all my years working in and around the subject of abortion I have yet to meet a single "pro abortionist".

What I have met is PLENTY of people who do not get the response they want in online forums who switch to that term in order to misrepresent others.

There is no reason why they shouldn't. You do know human language is contextual right? And having an issue with the incorrect use of a term in one CONTEXT does not automatically carry to others?

The EXACT same thing that makes the difference between a teen at 17 years and 364 days old and a teen at 18 years and 1 day old going in to buy alcohol. Or similar with a teen consenting to sex.

The "difference" being that it is just common to see laws and procedures and such things have a temporal based timing in their implementation.

There is no REAL reason why a teen should not be able to consent to sex or buy alcohol the day before their birthday. IDEALLY we would live in a world where every single case would be taken and considered on it's individual merits.

But we do not live in the ideal world. We live in a world where we often need temporal limits written into our laws. I have made my peace with that fact. You should too.

Nice deflection , just a pity there wasn't an answer to any of my questions.

Anyway people, I'm out of this conversation.

nozzferrahhtoo · 20-11-2017 02:46PM

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

Nice deflection , just a pity there wasn't an answer to any of my questions.

Anyway people, I'm out of this conversation.

Nice of you to preface your post with a description of it's content.

At least that is what I am assuming you are doing given I addressed every single point of yours I could find, and the only one now deflecting and retreating is you.

Though I do welcome the chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of Forum posting" once again. A tongue in cheek construction that has proven itself true more times than I ever expected.

Rather than scream "deflection" and run away however I wonder if a better approach over all might not be to point out which questions one feels were left unanswered. Because I think I have proven myself time and time again to be someone willing, when asked, to elaborate on any given point.

January · 20-11-2017 03:09PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh and on topic, Sofia has a message for anyone considering ending the life of a prenate with Down Syndrome.

Just another example of how the anti-choice side use emotional blackmail to try to pull at the heart strings of people who may be on the fence.

Down's Syndrome can be very scary for some people.

....... · 20-11-2017 03:16PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 20-11-2017 03:18PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The second picture is actually a video. It has nothing to do with anyone aborting fetus's who have been diagnosed with DS though, like I said, just the same old emotional blackmail, similar to what happened at the March for Life back during the summer where a woman was dragging a poor child down the road and pushing her into the faces of the pro-choice counter protesters.

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Comments