Deleted User wrote: » You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.
end of the road wrote: » Deleted User wrote: » You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable. what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away. the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.
[Deleted User] wrote: » You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby.
It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant.
I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies.
Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.
volchitsa wrote: » Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?
Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant. ... Most miscarriages occur before the 12th week of pregnancy.
sondagefaux wrote: » It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Repealing the 8th is the only solution.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » So the IT reports this morning that the Government is pressing ahead with preparing legislation to allow for up to 12 weeks, despite concerns that the public won't support it. It occurs to me, are FG just going through the motions here? They present a referendum which they are pretty sure will be rejected, but can then turn around and say "well we gave people their say" and consider the issue closed, thus not addressing it or having to face the potential fall out from their conservative base.
Da Boss wrote: » They seem to consider abortion as some sort of “right” and are so blinded they see no wrong.
humpsterfire wrote: » The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not. Another step down the ladder from personal responsibility for society as a whole.
Peregrinus wrote: » Surely all babies are clumps of developing cells?
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, the kind of pro-choice position I'll never get my head around is the pro-choice (but on my terms) position.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Ok, ever so slightly facetious, but hopefully you get the point - the labels (pro-choice/anti-choice/pro-life/anti-life, hell even the new pro-birth/anti-birth nonsense) really don't matter.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Have you ever thought to try that perspective on anyone who has lost a baby?
One eyed Jack wrote: » However sentience isn't and has never been the determining criteria in determining to whom we assign human rights. Clue is in the 'human' bit, and it is that upon which value is predicated. Sentient rights are an entirely different philosophical argument.
end of the road wrote: » not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually
end of the road wrote: » so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately.
end of the road wrote: » it has to be able to develop first
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » . . . What I find in the topic of abortion is that when I identify the attributes that elevate one "clump of cells" over another...... they happen to always be attributes that the fetus in the 0-16 week window (when the near totality of choice based abortion occurs) lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY.
Peregrinus wrote: » I doubt this. In general, to have promoted a referendum which doesn't pass is politically damaging. It makes a government look out of touch (you didn't realise it wouldn't pass)/lacking in leadership (you couldn't persuade people to vote for it). To my mind there;s always been a fundamental weakness in the pro-choice position (and I say this as a pro-choice person myself); while there's a majority who dislike the Eighth Amendment, it's not clear there's a majority for any particular alternative. Pointing out the effects of the Eighth Amendment on women facing health issues, on women who have been raped, etc, is effective at building dissatisfaction with the Eighth, but what you're assembling is a coalition of people, many of whom don't believe in a woman's right to choose, and who won't vote for it. So this choice was always going to have to be made - an amendment which will address "hard cases" of rape, incest, substantial medical issues but which won't confer a general right to choose a termination, which will will certainly pass but will not change the position of most women, or an amendment which opens up a genuine right to choose, which might not pass. If all you favour is a right to abortion in the hard cases, then obviously this is a no-brainer; you go for the more limited amendment. But if you favour a general right to choose, it's not so easy; you have to think clearly about the the risk that amendment you prefer would, if put forward, be rejected, likely resulting in paralysis on this issue for another decade or so. This isn't due to Machiavellian scheming by pro-life groups and socially conservative forces. My guess is that those who advocate risking all for the more pro-choice option do so because, while recognising the risk of losing, they think this is the only amendment worth having; a "hard cases only" amendment would have symbolic significance, but it would leave the position of the majority of Irish women unchanged
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. But the attributes that you identify as elevating one clump over another may be different from the attributes that someone else identifies for this purpose.
Peregrinus wrote: » And I can't see any argument for saying that your identification of attributes has an objective validity that theirs lacks.
thee glitz wrote: » It's a good place to generally prohibit it. The 8th is what we have now - can we do better? ... Change it ye, but give the people something they can support in big numbers.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution.
Peregrinus wrote: » My guess is that those who advocate risking all for the more pro-choice option do so because, while recognising the risk of losing, they think this is the only amendment worth having; a "hard cases only" amendment would have symbolic significance, but it would leave the position of the majority of Irish women unchanged.
...believes that only offering abortions in cases of incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality would "do nothing at all for most women in Ireland".
end of the road wrote: » no . a couple of examples of non-viable situations would be. FFA, threat to the mother's life, threat of permanent disability to the mother.
thee glitz wrote: » Great post. A 'hard cases only' amendment would allow for change for all women in those positions, be they many or few.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No need for the inverted commas kylith, I also never said I thought they lack a decision making capacity or that they are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests. You don't hate to break anything to me, in fact I suspect you quite revel in it given the way you've twisted what I said to try and make what I said sound like I don't trust women, but if I said that makes you untrustworthy, it still isn't saying I don't trust women, it's saying I don't trust you.
The people I don't trust is anyone who would exploit someone else's lack of decision making capacity to coerce anyone into making decisions they wouldn't normally make for themselves that aren't in their best interests, but which serve the interests of those people encouraging them towards an outcome which suits that persons best interests.
end of the road wrote: » no, that's not what i'm saying at all. the ideal outcome would be that abortion on demand wouldn't be availible, but other then that issue the woman would have full control of procedures performed on her. the only thing that is being looked for here is for the protections for the unborn to remain unless it is a situation where it isn't viable for that to happen.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Genuine question kylith but why do you think they're going to happen anyway? From my experience, a huge proportion of them wouldn't happen if women didn't feel they had to have them.
kylith wrote: » But you said So, what does that mean except that you think women will be coerced into doing something against their best interests because of a lack of decision making ability? It's all there in post #4108 Maybe you could clarify?
Do you think that men will force women to have abortions they don't want? Is it men you don't trust? Because that's an viable reading of what you wrote: men will coerce women into having abortions they don't want because the women lack the decision making ability to refuse.
But in order for women to have a say over what procedures are performed on them , the 8th first has to be repealed.
I appear to have missed this, sorry, but tbh, I have zero idea what you're trying to say here. 'A huge proportion of women wouldn't have abortions if they didn't feel they had to'. Excuse my bluntness here but Duh. But they do feel that they have to have them.
What do you think would change a woman's mind from 'I need to have an abortion' to 'I don't need to have an abortion'? A raise in child allowance? That'll be more taxes and more cost, which you have previously said you're against.
Perhaps a huge societal shift so that women aren't tacitly penalised in their careers for taking time off to have children? We'd all like to see that happen.
Maybe women who know they never want to have children could actually be allowed to be sterilised instead of patronised and told that they'll change their minds.
Perhaps we could actually get some decent sex ed in schools, not given by Catholic agencies.
Maybe contraception could be made free so that the poor and teenaged can get it: that move decrerased the abortion rate in St. Louis, Missouri by 62%.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.
consultation in a clinic in Dublin’s north inner city between a staff member and a woman seeking advice on a crisis pregnancy. The staff member advised the woman that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, and told her that abortion can turn women into child abusers in later life. The report found that the clinic’s website is one of the first addresses to be shown in a search for advice on how to access an abortion. The clinic claims that it offers impartial and objective advice on crisis pregnancies.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You prefer the downright lies being told by anti-abortionists posing as family planning clinics?http://www.thejournal.ie/rogue-pregnancy-advice-agencies-2964770-Sep2016/ Seems to me 'might be better off having an abortion' pales in comparison to 'abortion can turn you into a child abuser'.
