kylith wrote: » But in each case the rights of the living are less important than the rights of the not born and the dead. The unborn and the dead will never know one way of the other. In both cases it's the living who suffer.
end of the road wrote: » it's necessary as we recognise that someone has a right to make the decisian over donating their organs. when it comes to abortion however we are insuring that the right of the unborn to live is protected and upheld where possible. i can see where you are coming from but there is a difference.
Thirdfox wrote: » I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » During the SSM campaign, we heard from lots of non-religious moderate people who have no problem with the gays and would totally vote for same sex marriage only Panty Bliss is over the top and in your face so they voted the way the bishop said instead. Totally Pantys fault.
Widdershins wrote: » Not sure if I should ask, but, what?
NuMarvel wrote: » Assuming the Oireachtas legislates along the lines of the Committee's and Assembly's recommendations, then yes. Access to abortion after that will be for specific reasons.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy? I heard a lot about them.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Can somebody clear something up for me. Whilst we haven't had any wording for the referendum yet are we basically voting to allow abortion up to 12 with in all circumstances?
Widdershins wrote: » Interesting comment, thank you. I haven't followed the campaign lately, has the wording been published? I need to know what I'm voting on before I can really be sure.
Widdershins wrote: » It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper. But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.
NuMarvel wrote: » Who specifically are you talking about here? Because that doesn't sound like any of the spokespeople I've seen or heard.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Maybe you should see if I can argue it rather than simply declare I can not? If you want to challenge it do. Words are easy to say, but harder to make stick, so if you want to declare it to be "shady" then by all means explain HOW it is rather than merely assert THAT it is. Because what IS shady, is merely declaring an argument to be shady, without arguing how it actually is.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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: » 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.
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.
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?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.
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.
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.
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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.
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.
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.
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.
