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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you allow all sorts of nuance in defence of your own point of view, yet at the same time you're arguing as though giving birth to a child with downs syndrome inevitably leads to a life of misery for all involved, like your earlier comments about 'petting zoos'.

Christ Almighty.
No one is saying that its a guaranteed life misery, but you have already acknowledged that in some cases it does.

The simple fact is that people should be allowed to choose, for themselves, if they want to take the risk of a life of potential misery or not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now, as to this 'outsourcing' nonsense - no. We don't outsource anything. You simply cannot hold people responsible for something they aren't responsible for.

But we are.

In the X case, The Attorney General successfully applied to the courts for an injunction to protect the life of the unborn being taken to the UK for an abortion, and we were appalled, and held a referendum, and amended the Constitution to prevent him ever doing that again. And we voted to allow information about UK abortion to be legally circulated here.

The pro-lifers today let on that these were simply us allowing that we cannot control what happens on unholy foreign ground, but not at the time. They campaigned against the right to travel for abortion and against abortion information, and wanted to remove suicidality as a legal reason for abortion. 37.5% voted against the right to travel amendment. 34.5% voted to exclude suicidality. 40% voted against legalising abortion information.

They lost. We voted to make UK abortion and information about it legal here in Ireland.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not obliged to take responsibility for something I had no hand in and no control over.

So you are actively trying to stop Irish women travelling to the UK to murder children? Campaigning to repeal the 13th? Picketing the Ryanair desks?

Nope. We (including you) are perfectly OK with women having a right to choose abortion on demand, as long as they do the walk of shame to Britain for it.

GreeBo wrote: »

Strawman!
No one mentioned certainty other than your good self.
Again, you have admitted that its not always sunshine and lollipops; all we want is the option to be held by the people involved. Not and internet warrior.

Well if you don't want to acknowledge the multitude of posts that gave a shìtty prognosis for people with downs syndrome, fair enough. I won't labour the point.

As for the idea that you want the option to be held by the people involved, I've already said I have no issue with that. I'm the same, and they already have that.

So your argument is now that we should appreciate those with Downs since they are diverse?

A rather curious spin on what I said, but not entirely unexpected of internet warriors.

Should we have mothers experiment with some wacky drugs during pregnancy just to see if we can mix it up a bit more?

Should we? I wouldn't encourage or facilitate it, but she has that freedom of choice to decide on behalf of herself and her unborn what she wants to do, she is in the best position to make that determination so why not?

For the umpteenth time, the argument presented to you here is that this choice should be available before birth. Before there is a person for you to post happy pictures of. Before it all become impossible for anyone to have a logical, ethical discussion about it. Once a person is born, thats it, its too late. Hence these tests and the right to do something about the results of these test, *before* its too late.

I think if you've been reading my posts, I haven't once suggested otherwise. In fact I've argued that a woman should be able to avail of a termination of her pregnancy at any point in her pregnancy, without feeling the need to justify herself to anyone. That's why I never ask.

seamus wrote: »

Of course, "a life" is nice and vague. A maggot is "a life". Using weed killer is "taking a life". It's a nice soundbite that's utterly meaningless when you think about it.

I would like to make the point that the belief that an abortion ends a human life has no real basis in law.

Abortion is not murder. Otherwise it would be tried as murder.

The unborn is not considered a person. The 8th Amendment copperfastens this by explicitly calling out the need to confer a specific "right to life" on the unborn. If this right was implicit (as it is for born persons), the 8th wouldn't be necessary.

The state does not even recognise a born foetus as a person until a certain stage in development. After that stage, the foetus is entitled to a birth cert and a death cert. Before that stage, it is simply a miscarriage and the "waste materials" of that miscarriage are not recognised by the state as anything but.

I'm not sure detailing the current legal situation is that relevant to a moral discussion on what the legal status should be in the future. Our laws are a reflection of our morals which we are here discussing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if you don't want to acknowledge the multitude of posts that gave a shìtty prognosis for people with downs syndrome, fair enough. I won't labour the point.

You mean the posts in response to the videos and images you posted?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for the idea that you want the option to be held by the people involved, I've already said I have no issue with that. I'm the same, and they already have that.

No, they have no option thanks to you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A rather curious spin on what I said, but not entirely unexpected of internet warriors.

Sorry but you brought up appreciation of diversity in a thread about Downs. What was your point then?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should we? I wouldn't encourage or facilitate it, but she has that freedom of choice to decide on behalf of herself and her unborn what she wants to do, she is in the best position to make that determination so why not?

Ok, so slowly use your own words above to defend the right to abortion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think if you've been reading my posts, I haven't once suggested otherwise. In fact I've argued that a woman should be able to avail of a termination of her pregnancy at any point in her pregnancy, without feeling the need to justify herself to anyone. That's why I never ask.

Grand, so you are fine with women of Ireland having access to the various tests and if they so choose, having an abortion in Ireland?

Mousewar wrote: »

Little more? A self building blue print sounds like an extraordinary thing, not to be dismissed with such a dismissive phrase.

You are putting your own value judgement on the phrase then blaming me for it though.

I think it is a wonderful, awesome, beautiful and almost magical thing. From the moment of concept this strand of DNA information, inside a cell, is at the same time a blueprint AND the machine that will implement and build that blue print.

It is absolutely an extraordinary thing. I am astounded by it when I look at my own son and daughter every day. I was astounded by it at the moment of their birth that the tiny fully functional baby in my hands essentially built itself from materials around it from a blue print so small I could only view it with the aid of technology.

But as extraordinary as it is, the distinction in THIS CONTEXT on THIS thread is still a useful one to make......... between a blue print for building a person..... and an actual person.

So the blue print analogy is only a "poor one" or a "false one" if you attempt to extend it beyond the single point it is trying to make. Which is, I hope you will notice, true of just about every analogy ever. Of course it is different to a blue print for a house, for example. But the differences are not relevant to the point I am making here. Analogy would not work if there could not be ANY differences. There just has to be RELEVANT ones.

Mousewar wrote: »

I see no reason to make such a distinction between the sentience of a <16 weeks baby and a post 24 weeks baby in the same way I see no need to distinguish between an infant's sentience and an adult's sentience, the superiority of the latter in no way inferring greater rights to it.

And I would not only 100% agree with you there, but also add "or between a healthy adult and a mentally handicapped adult" too. My own belief is that the rights we afford any one sentient entity should be representative of the rights we afford any member of that entities species.

So from the moment sentience arises in a developing fetus, I would see it as having every bit as much a right to life as a 12 year old genius or a 40 year old dullard and everything in between.

But once the faculty of sentience has not yet existed, like in a fetus before 16 weeks, I see no argument for affording it moral and ethical concern. And when it comes to the treatment of the brain dead patient for whom sentience has left.... the moral and ethical concern we DO show such people tends actually to be A) retrospective based on the entity they once were and very often moral and ethical concern we are actually showing to their still sentience and living loved ones.

Mousewar wrote: »

In the same way, many people may value the <16 weeks baby's 'potential'.

"The same" but different too. It is not the same kind of potential. And the real only link between them is that you can use the word "potential" in both cases, while saying different things.

The difference being still that one is the potential to BE a sentient entity at some point, and the other is the potential OF a sentient entity to enjoy the "Life" as a person they already have.

But as you say only PART of the reason we save the infant is because they still have their life ahead of them. The other part is because we have a tendency to save the more vulnerable of two choices in the hope that the less vulnerable can fend for themselves.

In other words, when choosing to save the adult or the child you are equivocating your choice over what they are NOW. Two living sentient agents. With abortion you are thinking of what the fetus may one day be.... again a living sentient agent. I see that as a very stark difference.

But it is very often the crux of the difference between the pro and anti sides in this debate for sure. One side looks at what the fetus is NOW and decides based on that. The other side looks at what it has potential to be, and decides based on that.

I am just a person who bases all my beliefs and choices in all things on data I have CURRENTLY, not data I imagine I might have in the future.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whether or not an individual woman chooses to have an abortion is absolutely nothing to do with me whatsoever.

If you vote to keep the 8th amendment it means that you are supporting the imposition of rules where some women (who cannot travel for example) will not have the option of an abortion, if they wish to have one. So you can't wash your hands of it that easily.

Whether or not to allow for abortion in either the wording of the Constitution, or in legislation, is everything to do with every member of Irish society, as it determines the direction our society is to take, and that, I don't have to support, and I have every right to oppose it.

Here I disagree, this is fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the constitution. The constitution is about the rules that apply right now. It is not an aspirational document, something I have posted about before. It is not about where we would like to be at some time in the distant future, it is about where we are right now.

If you care about the direction our country is going, then you should be looking at political parties, their position papers and their manifestos.

How I as an individual choose to exercise that right, is just as much my own business as the woman as an individual chooses to exercise her right to travel abroad to avail of a termination of her pregnancy in another jurisdiction - nothing to do with me.

Sorry, but your position doesn't add up. You suggest that women should be able to decide for themselves, and that it's none of your own business, but yet you still hang on to the idea that Ireland should be an abortion free zone.

If you are so adamant that Irish women should be free to choose an abortion, why can't Irish woemn have abortions in Ireland? I'm really not seeing how you can reconcile the two positions.

....... wrote: »

I genuinely dont know what your position is as you seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth on the issue.

Hey if you're confused about my position, wait till you get a load of the 'pro-choice' peeps who would seek to impose limits on when they would allow for her to have that choice, according to what suits them! :rolleyes:

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not sure detailing the current legal situation is that relevant to a moral discussion on what the legal status should be in the future. Our laws are a reflection of our morals which we are here discussing.

Well the typical opposition to any proposed change to a position is based on the details of the current one.

And in that, people often make erroneous statements about what the "Irish State" believes in regard to the unborn - that is, they state that the proposed change is a huge departure from the current situation. Like suddenly declaring children to be flora & fauna or something.

When in reality it's not. The Irish State does not currently recognise personhood in the unborn. The 8th amendment asserts (without qualification) a "right to life", and the proposal is to remove that sloppy assertion and replace it with legislation instead.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hey if you're confused about my position, wait till you get a load of the 'pro-choice' peeps who would seek to impose limits on when they would allow for her to have that choice, according to what suits them!

Not sure I have met any such people. The only people I have met, and in fact I am one myself, are ones that espouse limits not that suit them........ but that the arguments they think relevant and accurate and true have led them to it.

It has nothing to do with what "suits" me at all. My conclusions are where the arguments led me, not where I led them. But alas presuming or inventing bias and agendas for others is an MO some people use more than others, as if you can question peoples bias and agenda (real or imagined) you can avoid dealing with their arguments.

And I am not sure what part of such positions you find "confusing". It is quite straightforward and simple:

1) When there is no other sentient entity for us to have moral and ethical concern for then I believe the woman can do whatever the hell she likes with it. From keeping it, to aborting it, to grinding it up and using it as paint in a picture for all I care.

2) The moment a sentience comes on line though, her rights to 100% choice have to be curtailed just like your right to swing a baseball bat around stops at the back of my head. Saying a person is pro-choice does not mean unlimited choice. Choice should always be limited relative to how much (and what type) of impact it has on OTHER entities for whom we have moral and ethical concern.

Baffled as to what part of that confuses anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Saying a person is pro-choice does not mean unlimited choice.

Baffled as to what part of that confuses anyone.

That's exactly what baffles me, it sounds like one of those Fair Usage Policies they sneak into the small print of a shìt broadband service and hope you don't notice their semantic gymnastics.