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

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-11-2017 07:13AM

Ah good to see you are not ignoring and dodging all my posts, just the ones directed at you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're suggesting that our morality and ethics with regard to human life are based upon sentience. However that is not the case. We base our morality and ethics with regard to human life on the basis of recognising the value in human life, at all stages from conception to death, and we assign value to human life on the basis of our shared humanity.

So without realizing it you are making my point for me but simply saying it a different way. How funny. But you are failing to make a distinction between my position about our ethics and morality being targeted at sentience, and yours that it is targeted at "human life".

Why? Because when you dig into what it is that we value about human life, and what arguments we have that human life SHOULD be valued..... then it leads you nowhere but to human sentience and consciousness from whence everything we value actually comes.

Morality, ethics, art, civilization, literature, culture, religion...... it is all flowing forth from that one attribute we have that other flora and fauna either do not have, or have but to a seemingly lesser degree.

It also bears out in terms of our treatment of OTHER flora and fauna on this planet. If you were to go around and ask 10,000 people what they would do while fleeing a burning building.... to save a spider or a cat..... I think we both know A) which they would choose and

why. Further I think you could even mediate that by making it an entire box of 10,000 spiders and they would still go for the cat.

Why? Because one higher instance of sentience is more important to people that 10,000 instances of barely any sentience at all. And be they personally a cat lover or a cat hater, they will be unlikely to care much for the spider.

And you could repeat that experiment for any other two relative instances of sentience and likely get the same result, lest you think it merely a product of peoples innate dislike of spiders.

So when you dig down into your terms, you may find that we are saying the exact same thing but using different words to say it. You say it is human life we value but I have merely dug down a little further into that any been explicit about WHY it is we value it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They aren't sentient, however we still, because of our compassion and affinity for humanity, judge that it is an indignity and an affront to human decency to use a dead woman to gestate a foetus.

And yet I still believe that to be linked to our value of sentience. Why? Because I think once a sentient being attains that faculty and hence becomes an entity or moral and ethical concern for us.......... we still afford it those rights retrospectively.

However deeper than that I think there is another point you are obfuscating, which is that our concern for the dignity of what is actually a corpse is less about our moral and ethical concern for that corpse, or the sentience that once inhabited it....... so much as a concern for the currently living sentient humans around us. Our distaste for the mistreatment of a corpse is born of our concern for how WE ourselves will be treated or could be treated.

And further again our treatment of our dead is more in relation to our treatment of that persons loved ones still living. I doubt anyone, even yourself, is naive enough to think ceremonies like funerals are actually done for the departed. They are done for the living.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No mention of sentience there, so the sentience argument is nothing more than a red herring.

No it is not. The distinction which you contrive to miss in pretty much EVERY abortion discussion I have with you is that I am discussing the moral and ethical arguments about how I think things SHOULD be.

You inevitably shift into a discussion about the current status qou of how things ARE and then pretend that somehow because YOU are talking about something distinct that I have magically missed the point.

A trick like that might work once, but when it is a consistent non-varying MO I think people start to very quickly see through the move as the dodge that it is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're still left with the predicament that it would only be available to those women who could afford it. For those women who can't, what would you suggest?

You seem to be attempting to make a "it wont be perfect" style of argument. As if there is no point making an argument for the benefit of abortion here in ireland unless it applies to 100% of people all the time.

The argument being made to you by at least three users that I can see is that the women who are being told "You have the choice for abortion, you just need to go to the UK for it" are often unable to afford to avail of that.

They have not got the money. The resources. The time off work. Or maybe even the health to take the journey.

So the argument they are offering is that MANY such women would benefit from having abortion here on Irish Soil. And your sole response to that seems to be essentially to point out that while many women would benefit from that, not all of them would.

So. The. Hell. What.

No policy is perfect. No policy will benefit 100% of people 100% of the time. The question is A) Would the policy bring benefit to a significant number of people and if yes then

is there any moral or ethical argument for why we should not be affording it to them.

One eyed Jack · 22-11-2017 07:47AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah good to see you are not ignoring and dodging all my posts, just the ones directed at you.

So much for dropping the petty sniping then?

Cool.

So without realizing it you are making my point for me but simply saying it a different way. How funny. But you are failing to make a distinction between my position about our ethics and morality being targeted at sentience, and yours that it is targeted at "human life".

I'm not making your point for you at all. Your argument with respect to our morals and ethics regarding human life is predicated upon sentience is simply untrue. Our morality and ethics regarding human life is solely based upon our recognition of the one single trait of being human.

The distinction which you contrive to miss in pretty much EVERY abortion discussion I have with you is that I am discussing the moral and ethical arguments about how I think things SHOULD be.

You inevitably shift into a discussion about the current status qou of how things ARE and then pretend that somehow because YOU are talking about something distinct that I have magically missed the point.

A trick like that might work once, but when it is a consistent non-varying MO I think people start to very quickly see through the move as the dodge that it is.

I'm not contriving to miss anything, not even the fact that you admit to wanting to shift the goal posts to an area that suits your argument better, but then you accuse me of shifting the goal posts because I want to leave them exactly where they are. If anyone is dodging here, it certainly isn't me.

If you can't defend your position without attempting to shift the goal posts to better suit your argument, then you should expect to be ignored until such a time as you actually make a point worth addressing.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-11-2017 07:53AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So much for dropping the petty sniping then?

If that is your assumption sure, but as I said it is NICE to see not all my posts are being ignored by you. Just a select few. Cool indeed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not making your point for you at all. Your argument with respect to our morals and ethics regarding human life is predicated upon sentience is simply untrue. Our morality and ethics regarding human life is solely based upon our recognition of the one single trait of being human.

That you do not realize we are essentially saying the same thing does not really change the reality of it though. The "single trait of being human" has to be predicated on something. What is it that distinguishes us from any other animal EXACTLY? I do not think people are really going around celebrating their DNA.

No the celebration of what it means to be human.... our language, civilization, art, culture and morality...... is predicated on one thing and one thing only that I can see. The one attribute that makes us distinct from anything else we have so far found in the universe.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the fact that you admit to wanting to shift the goal posts

Quote please where I "admitted" that? Show me directly the words I used where I did so.

Because I did no such thing. I did the opposite. I pointed out how YOU shift them to the current law EVERY time even in situations where nothing I have said was even remotely about that.

So yes, if anyone is dodging here it certainly is you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you can't defend your position

Which part of my position have I not yet defended? Rather than talk about it in the intentional abstract, be explicit about it and you will find I am more than capable and willing to defend it.

volchitsa · 22-11-2017 08:58AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not making your point for you at all. Your argument with respect to our morals and ethics regarding human life is predicated upon sentience is simply untrue. Our morality and ethics regarding human life is solely based upon our recognition of the one single trait of being human.

Not quite. Human stem cells are identical to the person they came from, they're alive and they reproduce, but that single trait of being human obviously isn't sufficient. The same point can be made about embryonic research or the selection and destruction of embryos during IVF procedures.

There does seem to be some requirement more than merely being human, and I think Nozz makes a good claim for sentience as being the earliest point at which "human rights" can reasonably be considered to be relevant.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-11-2017 09:09AM

Thank you. I just feel the "we value human life because it is human life" is from the get go merely a circular argument. And one that does not really help us with the abortion issue. Or any other issue we might potentially hit in the future.

What if, for example, we create a real General Artificial Intelligence. Would we value it? If so WHY would we value it? Clearly not because it is human. It might have every bit as much capacity for sentience, consciousness, suffering and more as we do..... perhaps even much more......... but by what measure would we consider it to have any right to life? Would we?

If we are not hanging ALL of this off sentience..... then I am genuinely agog to find out what we are doing it off. Or if morality and ethics are NOT in the business of maintaining the well being of conscious creatures.... then what IS it doing/for?

One eyed Jack · 22-11-2017 09:17AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Not quite. Human stem cells are identical to the person they came from, they're alive and they reproduce, but that single trait of being human obviously isn't sufficient. The same point can be made about embryonic research or the selection and destruction of embryos during IVF procedures.

There does seem to be some requirement more than merely being human, and I think Nozz makes a good claim for sentience as being the earliest point at which "human rights" can reasonably be considered to be relevant.

You probably remember when stem cell research was in it's infancy that the same moral and ethical dilemmas regarding human cloning and 'growing humans in a lab' and all the other applications of the technology were discussed, the same points were made. I'm old enough to remember the headlines in the media when the world's first 'test tube' baby was born and the ethical and moral consternation that caused, solely by virtue of the fact that these progesses in technology were redefining what it is to be human, faster than the law could keep up. It's the reason why ethics committees exist.

On that basis, sentience has never been a consideration in relation to human rights, merely the one single trait of being identified as human life, one single shared characteristic.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-11-2017 09:21AM

Then perhaps rather than working within a limited framework that can not keep up with the progresses of modernity, my "back to basics" approach of working out what it is that we are in the business of doing under the guise of ruminating about "what it means to be human" could be made more explicit.

Explicit in a way that will be ready for advances in human medicine and biology, advances in technology such as AI, and would even be ready should a sentient alien species land on our planet tomorrow.

If we constantly have to question what it is to be human every time a new technology or event comes along..... then perhaps the old approaches and definitions are not up to the job? And the circular argument of "We value humanity because it is human" recognized for being exactly that. Circular.

Virgil° · 22-11-2017 11:13AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Not quite. Human stem cells are identical to the person they came from, they're alive and they reproduce, but that single trait of being human obviously isn't sufficient. The same point can be made about embryonic research or the selection and destruction of embryos during IVF procedures.

There does seem to be some requirement more than merely being human, and I think Nozz makes a good claim for sentience as being the earliest point at which "human rights" can reasonably be considered to be relevant.

I'd say further to this the example of a person on life support but who shows no brain activity.
The vast majority of people and indeed our legal system see no problem with a delegated person or next of kin giving the thumbs up to killing said person. This is a human being with a beating heart, lungs that still take breath. A whole body, fingers toes and tongue. This is even a person who likely has friends/family/lovers.

This otherwise fully complete and completely alive human being can be killed. And thats because we as a society have implicitly recognised that this person is missing the one thing that truly matters. That makes them them . But we don't seem to be able to apply this understanding elsewhere.

GreeBo · 22-11-2017 11:22AM

end of the road wrote: »

as i will have to pay for abortion on demand, taking money from other parts of the various services that actually need it.

You mean those services that are supporting all the severely disabled Downs kids born to families that couldn't cope with or support them?

Logically wouldnt you prefer your money to be spent avoiding this long term financial burden on the state?

Granted, logic seems to be a missing chromosome on this thread.

GreeBo · 22-11-2017 11:24AM

end of the road wrote: »

no my main issue is it being in my country. i believe the current law is for the most part sufficient. nothing stopping anyone from having a privately funded abortion on demand in the uk.

Ok, so how about if it was in a different province than yours?
Different County perhaps, maybe even just a different hospital?

Your argument has now boiled down to some random NIMBYism that is frankly disgusting for its treatment of mothers and severely disabled people.

swampgas · 22-11-2017 12:43PM

Maybe this is just me - but with all the talk of stem cells and foetus's and embryos and babies, I find it odd how the pregnant woman (or girl) seems to disappear into the background. I've never met a foetus. I've met plenty of pregnant women, some of whom very much wanted to be pregnant, and some of whom very much didn't.

IMO the abortion debate should be about whether women have the final say over their medical care once they are pregnant. The 8th amendment and restrictive abortion laws say no. (Unless you travel - what a cop out.)

The more people fixate on the foetus (or unborn baby if that's your POV) the more they ignore the woman that is pregnant with it.

Banning abortion the way we do is trying to force women to continue pregnancies that they do not want. Think about how coercive that is. It's a huge invasion of bodily privacy and autonomy. Unfortunately a lot of people, either consciously or unconsciously, really don't believe that women can be trusted to do what is right for themselves, or else they really believe that women who don't want to be pregnant should simply be forced to go through with it regardless. Which is mind boggling. It's a cruel and inhumane way to treat a woman, because pregnancy is a massively challenging undertaking at the best of times, and should only be progressed if a woman really wants it.

To those people who insist that travel to the UK is acceptable - please grow up. Ireland should be able to provide any medical treatment to its own citizens at home that it is happy to guarantee access to abroad. Offloading it on another country is the worst kind of hypocrisy and a failure to accept responsibility for our own problems.

To those who think abortion should be denied to all women in Ireland for any reason, just how far are you prepared to go? Lock women up? Strap them to a bed and force feed them? Because that's what the 8th allows for.

And yet how many of the 8th amendment supporters would find a way to make an exception if it was their own crisis pregnancy, or their partner's crisis pregnancy, or their sister's or their daughter's? How many would slip away to England, then come back to carry on supporting the 8th because while their own abortions were justified, other women can't be trusted to make the same decision for themselves? Plenty would - and it stinks.

SusieBlue · 22-11-2017 12:52PM

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe this is just me - but with all the talk of stem cells and foetus's and embryos and babies, I find it odd how the pregnant woman (or girl) seems to disappear into the background. I've never met a foetus. I've met plenty of pregnant women, some of whom very much wanted to be pregnant, and some of whom very much didn't.

IMO the abortion debate should be about whether women have the final say over their medical care once they are pregnant. The 8th amendment and restrictive abortion laws say no. (Unless you travel - what a cop out.)

The more people fixate on the foetus (or unborn baby if that's your POV) the more they ignore the woman that is pregnant with it.

Banning abortion the way we do is trying to force women to continue pregnancies that they do not want. Think about how coercive that is. It's a huge invasion of bodily privacy and autonomy. Unfortunately a lot of people, either consciously or unconsciously, really don't believe that women can be trusted to do what is right for themselves, or else they really believe that women who don't want to be pregnant should simply be forced to go through with it regardless. Which is mind boggling. It's a cruel and inhumane way to treat a woman, because pregnancy is a massively challenging undertaking at the best of times, and should only be progressed if a woman really wants it.

To those people who insist that travel to the UK is acceptable - please grow up. Ireland should be able to provide any medical treatment to its own citizens at home that it is happy to guarantee access to abroad. Offloading it on another country is the worst kind of hypocrisy and a failure to accept responsibility for our own problems.

To those who think abortion should be denied to all women in Ireland for any reason, just how far are you prepared to go? Lock women up? Strap them to a bed and force feed them? Because that's what the 8th allows for.

And yet how many of the 8th amendment supporters would find a way to make an exception if it was their own crisis pregnancy, or their partner's crisis pregnancy, or their sister's or their daughter's? How many would slip away to England, then come back to carry on supporting the 8th because while their own abortions were justified, other women can't be trusted to make the same decision for themselves? Plenty would - and it stinks.

Excellent post. You sum it all up very well.

January · 22-11-2017 12:56PM

Problem is end of the road, Outlaw Pete, One eyed Jack etc just don't seem to think women are forced to remain pregnant. So they'll never see the distress some of these women go through trying to procure abortions when they're desperate. They just don't care, and that's the crux of it.

GreeBo · 22-11-2017 12:59PM

January wrote: »

Problem is end of the road, Outlaw Pete, One eyed Jack etc just don't seem to think women are forced to remain pregnant. So they'll never see the distress some of these women go through trying to procure abortions when they're desperate. They just don't care, and that's the crux of it.

Would it help if I posted images of severely disabled downs sufferers living in care homes?
I could even try to find a video.

One eyed Jack · 22-11-2017 02:08PM

January wrote: »

Problem is end of the road, Outlaw Pete, One eyed Jack etc just don't seem to think women are forced to remain pregnant. So they'll never see the distress some of these women go through trying to procure abortions when they're desperate. They just don't care, and that's the crux of it.

With all due respect January, just because I don't share your perspective is no indication of what I have or haven't seen, and secondly, if I actually didn't care, I wouldn't bother posting, knowing full well that I'm likely to be in a minority with regard to this issue, simply because I have no interest in labelling myself either pro-choice or pro-life.

It's been suggested over and over again, that even if the 8th amendment were repealed, we would still have the POLDPA in place, and the unborn would still have a right to life, and the only way to address this would be to have a referendum on rescinding the right to life of the unborn.

Because 'the unborn' is defined the way it is in Irish legislation, that would mean it would be much easier to draft legislation to allow for a woman to avail of a termination at any stage of her pregnancy without any terms and conditions attached. That's not to say that any woman would avail of a termination at any stage of her pregnancy, but that the opportunity is there for her medical care providers to be able to make decisions in her best interests throughout her pregnancy, without the worry that they may fall foul of any legislation which would see their hands tied, as happens every single day already in this country.

I don't expect that repealing the 8th amendment will have the effect here that people actually hope it will tbh. I expect the usual balls-up to follow afterwards which will mean women and their medical care providers will still be left in limbo.

ohnonotgmail · 22-11-2017 02:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With all due respect January, just because I don't share your perspective is no indication of what I have or haven't seen, and secondly, if I actually didn't care, I wouldn't bother posting, knowing full well that I'm likely to be in a minority with regard to this issue, simply because I have no interest in labelling myself either pro-choice or pro-life.

It's been suggested over and over again, that even if the 8th amendment were repealed, we would still have the POLDPA in place, and the unborn would still have a right to life, and the only way to address this would be to have a referendum on rescinding the right to life of the unborn.

Because 'the unborn' is defined the way it is in Irish legislation, that would mean it would be much easier to draft legislation to allow for a woman to avail of a termination at any stage of her pregnancy without any terms and conditions attached. That's not to say that any woman would avail of a termination at any stage of her pregnancy, but that the opportunity is there for her medical care providers to be able to make decisions in her best interests throughout her pregnancy, without the worry that they may fall foul of any legislation which would see their hands tied, as happens every single day already in this country.

I don't expect that repealing the 8th amendment will have the effect here that people actually hope it will tbh. I expect the usual balls-up to follow afterwards which will mean women and their medical care providers will still be left in limbo.

it will leave us in the position where the government can legislate properly. assuming the government will balls it up afterwards is no reason to leave things as they are.

One eyed Jack · 22-11-2017 02:20PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it will leave us in the position where the government can legislate properly. assuming the government will balls it up afterwards is no reason to leave things as they are.

That's my point - simple repeal won't do any such thing. Secondly, if you read all that and still came away with the impression that I was suggesting we leave things as they are, then you really are only reading what you want to read, as opposed to actually reading what I've written.

end of the road · 22-11-2017 02:24PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I was not comparing them, I was comparing the need for them. A much different thing, the distinction of which appears to have passed you by. The point being that "need" is not a useful qualifier for what we can, should, might, or could have in a given country at a given time.

you were comparing them, abortion on demand is not comparible to tv shows or drinks or food or gum. need very much is a useful qualifier for what we can, should, might, or could have in a given country at a given time when that country is struggling to fund services.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then you need to re-learn what the word "murder" means both in a legal AND philosophical context, because you are misusing it. It is no more murder than eating beef is. If you are going to debate the big questions in morality, you would do well to start out by learning the basic lexicon.

i don't need to learn anything. your waffle about eating beef is just that, waffle. it means jot. it's not comparible to abortion on demand.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps, but not to me. The SOLE arguments you have put forward in my presence have been "It is wrong because it is wrong" followed by an appeal to the current legal status quo.

A single solitary moral or ethical argument about why abortion before 16 weeks of a fetus is wrong however, you most certainly have not offered me. Anywhere. Ever.

i have offered plenty of arguments including what you asked for. but as you agree with abortion on demand, no argument will be enough for you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except as I said in one of the posts that was simply ignored, I would be more than willing to accept an argument that changes my position about "abortion on demand". And not only would I accept it, I have adumbrated for you EXACTLY what that argument must entail.

To repeat it, since it was ignored, it would simply require you to show me a coherent and cogent argument as to why the fetus before 16 weeks should be worthy of moral and ethical concern.

i already did. if you support abortion on demand then you can't change your mind, otherwise you can't be pro-choice.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you contrive to use a complete misuse of terms in an attempt to build an emotional argument where an intellectual one fails you entirely.

i don't. you are making up nonsense and throwing in big words that you haven't a clue of their meaning to make it sound like you know what you are talking about, when you don't. your arguments do not work and are waffle.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am agnostic about how these things should be funded so you might find more common ground than you expect with me there.

However what I would say is that economics of something like that are not the simple X+Y=Z you want to make it out to be. For example what are the relative costs to the state of affording a single woman an abortion.......... compared to funding her with economic support as a single parent for many years?

The economics of the situation are not even remotely as simplistic as your agenda is desperate for them to be.

they are. if the health budget has to fund abortion on demand, that money will have to come from somewhere. that means taking it from some other part of the health budget.

end of the road · 22-11-2017 02:27PM

GreeBo wrote: »

You mean those services that are supporting all the severely disabled Downs kids born to families that couldn't cope with or support them?

Logically wouldnt you prefer your money to be spent avoiding this long term financial burden on the state?

Granted, logic seems to be a missing chromosome on this thread.

it is not the job of others to lose out to give you abortion on demand when you can go to the uk.

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so how about if it was in a different province than yours?
Different County perhaps, maybe even just a different hospital?

no . it has no place in a country that values life as much as ireland does..

GreeBo wrote: »

Your argument has now boiled down to some random NIMBYism that is frankly disgusting for its treatment of mothers and severely disabled people.

it's not no . but nothing like a good lie to try and make someone out to be bad, something some pro-choicers/abortion on demand supporters are good at doing because they have no argument.

end of the road · 22-11-2017 02:27PM

swampgas wrote: »

To those people who insist that travel to the UK is acceptable - please grow up.

we grew up decades ago. it's you who needs to grow up.

swampgas wrote: »

Ireland should be able to provide any medical treatment to its own citizens at home that it is happy to guarantee access to abroad.

abortion on demand is not medical treatment. medical abortion is provided for in ireland. ireland has no obligation to provide abortion on demand or other treatment that is ultimately unnecessary.

swampgas wrote: »

Offloading it on another country is the worst kind of hypocrisy and a failure to accept responsibility for our own problems.

it's not as that isn't what is happening.

swampgas wrote: »

To those who think abortion should be denied to all women in Ireland for any reason, just how far are you prepared to go? Lock women up? Strap them to a bed and force feed them? Because that's what the 8th allows for.

And yet how many of the 8th amendment supporters would find a way to make an exception if it was their own crisis pregnancy, or their partner's crisis pregnancy, or their sister's or their daughter's? How many would slip away to England, then come back to carry on supporting the 8th because while their own abortions were justified, other women can't be trusted to make the same decision for themselves? Plenty would - and it stinks.

medical abortions are provided for in ireland. there may be some room to extend it to include other circumstances but abortion on demand is not that and has no place in ireland.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-11-2017 02:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

you were comparing them

Again no, comparing two things and comparing something ABOUT two things is different. For example if I say I hate cats and I hate bigots, I am comparing my hate for both, not comparing cats to bigots.

See the difference? So when I compare the NEED for two things, I am not in any way comparing those two things. This is not a complex linguistic distinction and if you can not even get that far into parsing my words I fear for the quality of our conversation going forward.

end of the road wrote: »

throwing in big words that you haven't a clue of their meaning

Pick ONE. Show me ONE word I used that you think I misused. Tell me how you think I used it. Tell me how you think it should be used. And tell me what the error was. Just one. Does not have to be all of them.

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is not comparible to tv shows or drinks or food or gum. need very much is a useful qualifier for what we can, should, might, or could have in a given country at a given time when that country is struggling to fund services. i don't need to learn anything. your waffle about eating beef is just that, waffle. it means jot. it's not comparible to abortion on demand. i have offered plenty of arguments including what you asked for. but as you agree with abortion on demand, no argument will be enough for you. i already did. if you support abortion on demand then you can't change your mind, otherwise you can't be pro-choice. i don't. you are making up nonsense and throwing in big words that you haven't a clue of their meaning to make it sound like you know what you are talking about, when you don't. your arguments do not work and are waffle.

The adhominem does not help anyone, and it is interesting you seem to want to pretend to know my mind better than I know it myself. But the opposite is true. I know both what is in my mind, and what is required to change it.

And what is in my mind is I think certain entities with the faculty of sentience should have the right to life. Entities ENTIRELY without one.... do not. The fetus is such an entity up to 16 weeks we are pretty sure.

So my mind CAN be changed. It can be changed by an argument that suggest that there is some reason, other than sentience, that we should be morally and ethically concerned for the fetus.

Do you have such an argument?

end of the road wrote: »

they are. if the health budget has to fund abortion on demand, that money will have to come from somewhere. that means taking it from some other part of the health budget.

And again the economics of that are more complex than you are pretending. Such as the economics of supporting a single mother (who did not want to be a single mother) which I asked you about but.... predictably..... you did not answer.

So I will repeat the dodged question for you: what are the relative costs to the state of affording a single woman an abortion.......... compared to funding her with economic support as a single parent for many years?

swampgas · 22-11-2017 02:40PM

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is not medical treatment. medical abortion is provided for in ireland. ireland has no obligation to provide abortion on demand or other treatment that is ultimately unnecessary.

medical abortions are provided for in ireland. there may be some room to extend it to include other circumstances but abortion on demand is not that and has no place in ireland.

Says who? You? Who the hell made you arbiter of what is or isn't necessary, do you represent all Irish women? Your arrogance is astounding.

Abortion is a medical procedure. Irish women use it in their thousands every year, it's just that they have to order pills online or travel abroad to get access to it. Abortion absolutely has a place in Ireland, because Ireland is (almost) a modern western country and not (completely) the oppressive religious conservative backwater that it was years ago.

Many Irish women need or want abortions, it doesn't matter which word you use, because women shouldn't have to justify to anyone else why they do not feel capable of going through with a pregnancy.

kylith · 22-11-2017 02:46PM

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is not medical treatment. medical abortion is provided for in ireland. ireland has no obligation to provide abortion on demand or other treatment that is ultimately unnecessary.

When a woman is actively in the process of dying, and then only maybe. After all, this is the country that kept a corpse on life support.

Do the women in your life know that if they were pregnant and were diagnosed with cancer you would happily deny them treatment until it becomes terminal?

end of the road wrote: »

swampgas wrote:

Offloading it on another country is the worst kind of hypocrisy and a failure to accept responsibility for our own problems.

it's not as that isn't what is happening.

Of course it's what's happening, it's what you yourself have said over and over in this very thread: "If they want an abortion they can go to England for it".

Neyite · 22-11-2017 03:13PM

Currently there is no official recognition for babies that are born too soon and do not meet the requirements set out in the Stillbirths Registration Act*, 1994 and carried to the Civil Registration Act, 2004.

Yet we also have the 8th, which protects that same entity over the health and life of the mother.

*If a baby /foetus is stillborn at less than 24 weeks and weighing less than 500g.

Seems even our legislation can't decide whether it's a foetus or a baby prior to 24 weeks. The whole thing is ridiculous.

January · 22-11-2017 03:37PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With all due respect January, just because I don't share your perspective is no indication of what I have or haven't seen, and secondly, if I actually didn't care, I wouldn't bother posting, knowing full well that I'm likely to be in a minority with regard to this issue, simply because I have no interest in labelling myself either pro-choice or pro-life.

It's been suggested over and over again, that even if the 8th amendment were repealed, we would still have the POLDPA in place, and the unborn would still have a right to life, and the only way to address this would be to have a referendum on rescinding the right to life of the unborn.

Because 'the unborn' is defined the way it is in Irish legislation, that would mean it would be much easier to draft legislation to allow for a woman to avail of a termination at any stage of her pregnancy without any terms and conditions attached. That's not to say that any woman would avail of a termination at any stage of her pregnancy, but that the opportunity is there for her medical care providers to be able to make decisions in her best interests throughout her pregnancy, without the worry that they may fall foul of any legislation which would see their hands tied, as happens every single day already in this country.

I don't expect that repealing the 8th amendment will have the effect here that people actually hope it will tbh. I expect the usual balls-up to follow afterwards which will mean women and their medical care providers will still be left in limbo.

With respect you have your wires totally crossed on the functions of both the 8th amendment and the POLDPA.

If the 8th amendment is repealed it will remove the wording in the constitution that states that the unborn has an equal right to the mothers life. If the 8th is repealed, the POLDPA will still be enacted but as this is legislation and not in the constitution we do not need another referendum to change this (similarly we did not need to vote on putting the POLDPA into place) all we need is the government to enact new legislation to supercede this act.

The right to life of the unborn lies solely within the 8th amendment once that is repealed we can legislate for abortions and what time limits we should/shouldn't have.

ETA: You thinking the government won't do anything if the 8th is repealed is not a good enough reason not to repeal it.

end of the road · 22-11-2017 03:51PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again no, comparing two things and comparing something ABOUT two things is different. For example if I say I hate cats and I hate bigots, I am comparing my hate for both, not comparing cats to bigots.

See the difference? So when I compare the NEED for two things, I am not in any way comparing those two things. This is not a complex linguistic distinction and if you can not even get that far into parsing my words I fear for the quality of our conversation going forward.

you were comparing the different things. that is a fact. there is a huge difference between your post comparing bigots and cats, and your post comparing abortion to gum.

Pick ONE. Show me ONE word I used that you think I misused. Tell me how you think I used it. Tell me how you think it should be used. And tell me what the error was. Just one. Does not have to be all of them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The adhominem does not help anyone, and it is interesting you seem to want to pretend to know my mind better than I know it myself. But the opposite is true. I know both what is in my mind, and what is required to change it.

And what is in my mind is I think certain entities with the faculty of sentience should have the right to life. Entities ENTIRELY without one.... do not. The fetus is such an entity up to 16 weeks we are pretty sure.

So my mind CAN be changed. It can be changed by an argument that suggest that there is some reason, other than sentience, that we should be morally and ethically concerned for the fetus.

Do you have such an argument?

i gave it a plenty. but as you support abortion on demand and are pro-choice, any argument that would be given against it you can't agree because it would mean you will have shown your argument to be invalid. your waffle about sentience doesn't change the reality.

Pick ONE. Show me ONE word I used that you think I misused. Tell me how you think I used it. Tell me how you think it should be used. And tell me what the error was. Just one. Does not have to be all of them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again the economics of that are more complex than you are pretending. Such as the economics of supporting a single mother (who did not want to be a single mother) which I asked you about but.... predictably..... you did not answer.

So I will repeat the dodged question for you: what are the relative costs to the state of affording a single woman an abortion.......... compared to funding her with economic support as a single parent for many years?

the money will have to come from elsewhere, unless we are increasing taxes. there is no evidence abortion on demand will cut the wellfare bill.

January · 22-11-2017 03:57PM

end of the road wrote: »

the money will have to come from elsewhere, unless we are increasing taxes. there is no evidence abortion on demand will cut the wellfare bill.

There's no evidence to suggest that if abortion 'on demand' (as you like to describe it) is introduced into this country that your taxes will rise. You are just assuming that you'll have to pay for it.

Triceratops Ballet · 22-11-2017 03:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

the money will have to come from elsewhere, unless we are increasing taxes. there is no evidence abortion on demand will cut the wellfare bill.

look at it on an individual basis then. Woman a is pregnant, the state pays for maternity care up to and including delivery date. Not to mention post natal checkups etc. If woman a does not proceed with her pregnancy and opts to terminate, she will not require maternity care and post natal care.

The money is already allocated for maternity services, abortion falls under that heading, therefore there is no money to come from anywhere else. it won't be a case that all of a sudden the dept of education loses it's budget for books because of abortion

end of the road · 22-11-2017 04:00PM

swampgas wrote: »

Says who? You? Who the hell made you arbiter of what is or isn't necessary, do you represent all Irish women? Your arrogance is astounding.

Abortion is a medical procedure. Irish women use it in their thousands every year, it's just that they have to order pills online or travel abroad to get access to it. Abortion absolutely has a place in Ireland, because Ireland is (almost) a modern western country and not (completely) the oppressive religious conservative backwater that it was years ago.

Many Irish women need or want abortions, it doesn't matter which word you use, because women shouldn't have to justify to anyone else why they do not feel capable of going through with a pregnancy.

abortion on demand has no place in ireland. ireland is a modern western country, however it values life for all and equally, and that must be protected and faught for. religion should have nothing to do with this argument, i for one, am as far from religious as it gets. abortion on demand isn't needed, medical abortion is, and is availible in ireland. there may be certain circumstances which could fit into medical abortion, but abortion on demand can be done in england if people want it.

kylith wrote: »

When a woman is actively in the process of dying, and then only maybe. After all, this is the country that kept a corpse on life support.

Do the women in your life know that if they were pregnant and were diagnosed with cancer you would happily deny them treatment until it becomes terminal?

i'm not denying them anything. i don't make the rules.

kylith wrote: »

Of course it's what's happening, it's what you yourself have said over and over in this very thread: "If they want an abortion they can go to England for it".

that's not what is happening.

January wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that if abortion 'on demand' (as you like to describe it) is introduced into this country that your taxes will rise. You are just assuming that you'll have to pay for it.

we can safely say the tax payer will be paying.

January · 22-11-2017 04:03PM

Abortion is a medical procedure. There are medical and surgical abortions. Stop describing the abortions that are performed in Ireland under the POLDPA as 'medical' abortions, they are just abortions. Medical is induced via pills, surgical is, well, surgical. But they are all abortions none the less.

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

Comments