ohnonotgmail wrote: » I was pointing out your failed attempt at cheap point scoring. because that is all it was. you do realise that guy was on the "pro-life" side, right? as i said earlier that makes you very much an outlier. take a look at a "pro-life" rally and tell me the people attending dont fit into one if not all of those groups.
Widdershins wrote: » Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.
Widdershins wrote: » It's not an issue to take lightly
Thirdfox wrote: » It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap ) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean. I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll. I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed). Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/http://www.secularprolife.org And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/ So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me. Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.
Widdershins wrote: » Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is? I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote. I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.
Widdershins wrote: » I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy.
Widdershins wrote: » I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not. YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter. Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do??
Widdershins wrote: » How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » That does not mean they are not comparable however. I am confused at this point as to whether you know what the word comparable even means. You seem to think it means "the same in every way". It does not. The simple fact is they are not sentient NOW and that makes a point of comparison. If a rock is grey and a car is grey they are comparable. I can say "They are both things that are grey". The fact that one has many attributes different to the other does not mean they are not comparable.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The pregnant women however is sentient now, and I see no reason to curtail her choices or her well being in favor of a not just slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Might, not will. You can not see the future. But either way the word WILL implies it is not NOW sentient. So I see no basis for affording it rights, or moral and ethical concern. Nor are you offering one other than declaring "must" a lot. You are appealing to potentials to declare acuals. And not just in general, but specifically in a case that curtails the rights, choices, and well being of an ACTUAL sentient agent. The pregnant woman.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Nothing has the "right to be sentient". You just invented that out of nowhere.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » When you are aborting a fetus however there is no "other" to affect. It is a non-sentient construct of biological matter with no rights and source of moral obligation.
end of the road wrote: » there is no comparison between an unborn baby, a rock and a table. to compare them is just waffle, and post filler. all filler no killer as they say.
end of the road wrote: » her choices are effecting a human being inside her
end of the road wrote: » where others will be effected
end of the road wrote: » in this country the unborn baby has a right to be sentient. it has the right to life. removing that right allows for the eventual removal of other rights, we must not allow that to happen.
end of the road wrote: » when you are aborting a baby there is an other to effect, that unborn baby.
Widdershins wrote: » No. You'd have to completely ignore my concerns about their motives to think that. And focus on what suits you. Which of course you did. Predictably.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » their motives are irrelevant. If you are looking for ulterior motives there are plenty on the opposite side. what is relevant is the facts of the situation. something you have relegated to a distant third in your considerations.
Thirdfox wrote: » Unfortunately it is not as simple as that - a rock is "not sentient" but unless you imply the atoms in that rock may ultimately end up in a sentient human being (or alien ) -then it can never be described as "would be sentient".
Widdershins wrote: » ''The other side'' is of no interest to me, ultimately this is my firmly held view that neither side could change.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now. Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else.
kylith wrote: » IDK if you can do that if they haven't signed an organ donor form.* Funny how you can't use the organs from a corpse to keep sentient, suffering people alive without their consent, but you can force a sentient, living woman to use her entire body to keep alive an insentient fetus that is incapable of suffering. *Has that now been changed to the saner 'opt out' system?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Again if two things share an attribute, then they are comparable based on that attribute. This is basic English as to what the word "comparable" even means. The simple fact is they share the attribute of being devoid of consciousness, therefore they are comparable on that basis.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Which is not a PERSON and has no attribute upon which to think of it as one. Calling it a "human being" does not make it one, outside the realms of mere taxonomy. Are morality and ethics to be mediated on mere taxonomy now? That is..... pretty limited.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And as I keep saying there is no meaningful "other" to be affected here. You are just imagining there is, supported by little more than appeals to the current legal status quo.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It is a fetus and there are no "lights on" in terms of humanity or personhood. It is an empty biological life form with no coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern. "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now. Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else. I hold many views, some of them very firmly indeed, but that are all amenable to change. And almost always I know what would be required to change them. For example my pro choice abortion position could be instantly changed by a single coherent argument for affording moral and ethical concern to 12/16 week old fetuses.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.
Edward M wrote: » Where do you draw the line though! At what age do you consider a foetus as a viable human and why?
Thirdfox wrote: » Needless to say - if you were drafting a legal document you'd be very careful when choosing to use X is becoming Y and not interchangeably using it with X is not Y.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » We do not have enough knowledge at this time to point to an EXACT time that humans become sentient. In fact from all my reading of the subject I believe there is no one moment it happens. Rather it is like trying to find the point where red turns into orange on a rainbow. You can point to places you are sure are red, and places you are sure are orange, but you will never find a transition point. For the purposes of abortion however I do not think we need to know when a fetus BECOMES sentient (Orange), but when it is not (Red). We can not find a transition point, but we CAN point to the rainbow and say "This is red". And 98%ish of abortions by choice happen WELL within that red zone. A zone where not just most, but everything we know about human consciousness and sentience at this time tells us sentience is simply not there.
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Widdershins wrote: » I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable.
Widdershins wrote: » Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts.
Widdershins wrote: » Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever.
end of the road wrote: » but are not comparable over all as the unborn will be sentient whereas the others will never be.
end of the road wrote: » it will be a person, and will have atributes upon which to think of it as one. calling it a human being is accurate as it is a human being, it's hardly an extra-terresstrial being. taxonomy isn't relevant here, as a factual statement is that a human being is a human being.
end of the road wrote: » it is a human being which will become a person
Edward M wrote: » Its a shady answer and can't be argued with in itself
Edward M wrote: » some date and time must be put on it
Edward M wrote: » I was a baby once myself, fcuked if I can remember when I became sentient, (i know , i know)maybe if mama had strangled me at birth she would have been sound?
Widdershins wrote: » I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable. You criticised for being influenced by behaviour of campaigners a moment ago. When I just felt I needed to know more about their future, publicly unspoken aims if I was to align myself with their present campaign. Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts. Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever. There are people who vote for politicians based on their mugshot appeal alone.
NuMarvel wrote: » Later term abortions will be a consequence of a no vote. The status quo is that women travel or take other steps, which by its nature means they are accessing abortion services later than they would have if it was available locally. You can see that in the English statistics; the percentage of Irish women having abortions within the first 12 weeks is roughly 8% lower than those of English residents. A no vote also means Irish women continue to be twice as likely as English residents to have a surgical abortion; last year 78% of Irish women had a surgical abortion, compared to 38% of English women. As far as I know, that's because medical abortions take longer to complete, and time, and the financial cost that goes with that, are commodities most Irish residents don't have. So looking at the facts alone, a no vote doesn't achieve your aims of reducing the likelihood of later term or surgical abortions. Conversely, it doesn't follow that a yes vote will lead to more later term abortions. Around the globe, whether access is subject to term limits or not, the trend is that when women can access abortion, they do so early on. Typically, more than 90% of abortions are carried within the first trimester. So even if a yes vote did mean that Ireland would eventually end up legalising later term abortions (and I wouldn't put money on the odds of that happening anytime soon), it doesn't follow that abortions will happen later on. So it's a simple choice: A No vote means later term and surgical abortions WILL happen. A Yes vote means it might happen, but it's not likely. If someone is basing their criteria on the prospects of later terms abortions, then the choice is clear: vote for repeal. Anyone who would decide to vote no is prioritising other criteria.
