The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh whatever dude, this is why most of the time I simply can't be arsed entertaining you, you're not here to add anything substantial to the discussion, you're just here to nit-pick. I've been civil, now I just can't be arsed. Have it your way.

So pointing out a blatantly false statement is blatantly false is "nitpicking" now is it? And something I uniquely do compared to others you talk with, as if it is not happening all over the forum all the time by pretty much every user engaged in ANY debate?

Pull the other one.

The simple fact is that sexual education, in the context of the classroom setting, has a demonstrable effect on pregnancy and abortion rates outside the class room.

YOU claimed that such an education in the setting of the classroom will not have an "iota" of effect outside the classroom.

That is not picking. That is correcting an egregiously and ENTIRELY false statement. Dude.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope it really does not.

Oh whatever dude, this is why most of the time I simply can't be arsed entertaining you, you're not here to add anything substantial to the discussion, you're just here to nit-pick. I've been civil, now I just can't be arsed. Have it your way.

Nope it really does not. You are just word dancing out of your falsehood by pretending you have a different definition of "comprehensive sex education" than everyone else does.

You claimed such an education has no effect outside the classroom. It has an effect outside the class room, measurable in rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

What part of that sexual education do you feel can (or has) NOT be offered in the context of a school classroom "setting"?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course there is more to it. I said that already. But the fact is that claiming a comprehensive sex education will have no effect outside the classroom, as you did, is demonstrably a false statement.

That other things ALSO have an effect, and work in interplay with such education, does not change the falsehood of your statement. No matter how desperately you want it to.

When I spoke of comprehensive sex education in the classroom, I was thinking of things that could be taught to children in that setting. That's what I meant by saying comprehensive in that context. A comprehensive sex education programme itself is something else entirely different from just what could be taught in a classroom setting in any given 40 minute period.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't retract it because the links you posted suggested that there was more to any of the programmes than just what could be covered in a 40 minute sex ed class in the school environment.

Of course there is more to it. I said that already. But the fact is that claiming a comprehensive sex education will have no effect outside the classroom, as you did, is demonstrably a false statement.

That other things ALSO have an effect, and work in interplay with such education, does not change the falsehood of your statement. No matter how desperately you want it to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You said:

"You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. "

and I showed many links showing that the most comprehensive sex ed in schools has a LOT of effect and makes a LOT of difference outside the classroom.

And you think that does not contradict what you said??? It is the exact opposite of what you said. It could not possibly be MORE of a contradiction of the unsubstantiated assertion you just offered here.

No, you said that comprehensive sex ed in schools does not have an iota of effect outside the classroom. That was an egregiously unsubstantiated and false statement you made. Feel free to retract it.

I won't retract it because the links you posted suggested that there was more to any of the programmes than just what could be covered in a 40 minute sex ed class in the school environment. They appear to have taken as you said a more holistic approach to the issue than just simply... well, blasting children with information :pac:

One only has to look at more developed societies as opposed to developing societies to see that numerous factors contribute to a reduction in underage sex and all the implications of it, and that applies to both boys and girls alike, as opposed to some sex education programmes I've seen solely targeted at making girls responsible for their sexual health. The ideal is of course prevention rather than cure.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None of the links you posted actually contradict what I said

You said:

"You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. "

and I showed many links showing that the most comprehensive sex ed in schools has a LOT of effect and makes a LOT of difference outside the classroom.

And you think that does not contradict what you said???

It is the exact opposite of what you said. It could not possibly be MORE of a contradiction of the unsubstantiated assertion you just offered here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's pretty much what I said?

No, you said that comprehensive sex ed in schools does not have an iota of effect outside the classroom. That was an egregiously unsubstantiated and false statement you made. Feel free to retract it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is false.

None of the links you posted actually contradict what I said which was in direct reply to kylith's assertion about better sex education in schools.

There is of course a number of factors in play and interplay. Addressing one is NEVER going to solve the problem. We need a holistic (despite the bad press that word gets these days) approach to the issue.

But that sex education is a part of it, and has a massive effect in the world (rather than not an "iota" of "difference outside of the school classroom") seems clear in the world of people making studies and research rather than the world of individuals on forums making baseless assertions.

That's pretty much what I said?

....... wrote: »

Whats warped?

The assertion that just because I made the point about one, must mean that I would actually prefer the complete opposite of that. That's warped, and it doesn't follow from what I said at all.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/a-look-behind-the-declining-abortion-rate.html

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom.

That is false.

The data also shows that—contrary to some opinions—teaching comprehensive sex education does not increase the rate that teenagers engage in sexual activity. In fact, teaching comprehensive sex education may actually decrease it.

A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

Evaluations of comprehensive sex education programs show that these programs can help youth delay onset of sexual activity, reduce the frequency of sexual activity, reduce number of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraceptive use. Importantly, the evidence shows youth who receive comprehensive sex education are NOT more likely to become sexually active, increase sexual activity, or experience negative sexual health outcomes. Effective programs exist for youth from a variety of racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds.1,2,3,4,5

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Guttmacher reported that, although definitive studies are not available, some studies have shown that comprehensive sex education classes work better than abstinence-only classes.

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/abortion-sex-education/2015/04/23/id/640405/

"The quality and quantity of evaluation research have improved dramatically over the last decade, and there is now clear evidence that comprehensive sex education programs can change the behaviors that put young people at risk of pregnancy,"

Gutmacher

After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. States that taught comprehensive sex and/or HIV education and covered abstinence along with contraception and condom use (level 1 sex education; also referred to as “abstinence-plus” [26], tended to have the lowest teen pregnancy rates,

Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024658&utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partner

The resident population of the western portion of a South Carolina county has undergone a public health information and education intervention since October 1982. The purpose of the intervention has been to reduce the occurrence of unintended pregnancies among unmarried adolescents. Intervention messages are targeted at parents, teachers, ministers and representatives of churches, community leaders, and children enrolled in the public school system. The messages emphasize development of decision-making and communication skills, self-esteem enhancement, and understanding human reproductive anatomy, physiology, and contraception. The estimated rate of pregnancy ([live births plus fetal deaths plus induced abortions] per 1000 female population) for females aged 14 to 17 years in the county's western portion has declined remarkably since the intervention began, and the changes are statistically significant when compared with three sociodemographically similar counties and also with the eastern portion of the county.

Reducing Adolescent Pregnancy Through School and Community-Based Education
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/366769?redirect=true

This paper reviews 83 studies that measure the impact of curriculum-based sex and HIV education programs on sexual behavior and mediating factors among youth under 25 years anywhere in the world. Two thirds of the programs significantly improved one or more sexual behaviors. The evidence is strong that programs do not hasten or increase sexual behavior but, instead, some programs delay or decrease sexual behaviors or increase condom or contraceptive use.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X0600601X

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Who is "we"? I do not know anyone who expects that. Nor have you offered here a single reason why we would or should expect that. You just asserted it and left it hanging there. Substantiate this expectation for me please.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof.

What ARE you talking about here? You think that because ALL of them did not have crisis pregnancies that therefore the points people are making here about sexual education are somehow invalidated or even diluted? What nonsense is this from you? That is not how it works even remotely in the real world. The education effects the RATES of crisis pregnancies over a population. That individuals, having received such education, still experience crisis pregnancies (while others do not) does not invalidate that one bit.

Also no one is saying that any of this is "Just sex education". You just made that part up entirely. Just like you do later in this same post when saying "wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception".

There is of course a number of factors in play and interplay. Addressing one is NEVER going to solve the problem. We need a holistic (despite the bad press that word gets these days) approach to the issue.

But that sex education is a part of it, and has a massive effect in the world (rather than not an "iota" of "difference outside of the school classroom") seems clear in the world of people making studies and research rather than the world of individuals on forums making baseless assertions.

This post has been deleted.

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'.

What?

That even beats kylith's earlier attempt to interpret the intent of my posts in the most unkind and malicious way possible.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose, but don't expect I should have to dignify it by entertaining such a warped interpretation.

Bannasidhe

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.

You prefer the downright lies being told by anti-abortionists posing as family planning clinics?

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.

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'.

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?

You've read the original post, twisted it, then quoted it again, you're not dense so I know you're quite capable of reading it as it was intended.

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.

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.

But in order for women to have a say over what procedures are performed on them , the 8th first has to be repealed.

Not necessarily, the 8th only comes into play when there is a risk to the right to life of the unborn. In cases where a pregnant woman wants to continue her pregnancy and give birth and raise the child, the 8th isn't any obstruction to that.

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.

I know, 'Duh', because the far more reasonable assumption is that pregnant women don't want to have abortions, and yet you assume that they are going to happen anyway, and the question I simply asked is why would you assume they would still want an abortion if they didn't feel they had to have to have one? I think we can take it from your response that they wouldn't.

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.

The reason I'm against such a move is because you don't give people independence from the State and teach them to generate their own wealth by making them more dependent upon the State for their income.

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.

Now you're talking, but that's not the monumental social and cultural shift you make it out to be, and there are a growing number of employers who recognise the value in recognising that their employees families are important, and have all sorts of initiatives in place to attract top talent with a focus on recognising the importance to them of their families. I'm very fortunate that my employer not only offers but actually actively encourages that sort of flexibility.

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.

That's a social and cultural shift that would need to take place within not just in Ireland, but internationally, so to try and tie it in with the repeal of the 8th amendment is at best a stretch.

Perhaps we could actually get some decent sex ed in schools, not given by Catholic agencies.

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof. Numerous studies have shown that the most influential factor as a predictor of attitudes to sex and sexuality and pregnancy and family and so on, is indeed the family, and not the school.

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%.

There are some forms of long-term contraception available on the medical card already, and there are numerous places where condoms at least are available free of charge. I can guarantee you the decrease in the abortion rate wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception, but more likely due to encouraging people to be responsible for their own sexual health.

kylith

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.

But you said

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.

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.

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.

But in order for women to have a say over what procedures are performed on them , the 8th first has to be repealed.

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.

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%.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

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.

Any "hard cases only" amendment would exclude some women who regard their own case as hard (and that woman could be your wife or daughter someday).

It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution. Unless you can list, for example, every FFA condition and the diagnostic markers sufficient to qualify in legal terms? No? Neither can anyone else.

Zubeneschamali

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.

And for 2 of those 3, we must repeal the 8th.

Good to have you on board.

Loafing Oaf

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.

Katherine Zappone said as much a couple of years ago:

...believes that only offering abortions in cases of incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality would "do nothing at all for most women in Ireland".

Like you, I believe this is a widespread position in pro-choice circles, but as something of an 'outsider' who is AFAIK not officially involved with any abortion rights group, it's easier for her to call a spade a spade.

NuMarvel

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.

I think you've missed my point. The Constitution might be an appropriate place for an absolute ban on abortion, but it becomes a field of landmines when you start adding qualifications.

There is little point changing the constitution for purely popular purposes. Constitutional provisions must be effective and fit for purpose. Because of the relatively static nature of constitutions, they must be ones that will have relevance over the course of decades. None of these criteria could be applied to a provision about complex clinical and ethical matters.

No matter how popular it might be, changing the 8th to allow "some change" just means more court cases and more referendums. And I don't see that benefiting anyone in the long run.

EDIT Or as Zubeneschamali put it further on:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution.

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.

Sure, and that is what conversation is for. I am agog to hear someone not just assert, but substantiate their arguments for what those "other attributes" might be. But when it gets to that point, that tends to be exactly where any given interlocutor simply runs away.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I can't see any argument for saying that your identification of attributes has an objective validity that theirs lacks.

Of course not, "they" haven't offered any yet that I am yet aware of. Perhaps they have to you in private? Otherwise how can you see what mine has, that theirs lacks, if they have not told us what theirs is/has yet???

But I have certainly, many times, at nauseating length for some, explained the arguments and basis for mine. Happy to do so again if and when asked. But if rights and moral/ethical concern is NOT mediated by, and targeted at, sentient agents then I am agog to hear what it is in the business of doing exactly.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz

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

Great post. A 'hard cases only' amendment would allow for change for all women in those positions, be they many or few.

It's a tricky position to defend - promoting A+B based on the importance of A, but not liking A without B, even as a potential stepping stone.

Peregrinus

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.

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. And I can't see any argument for saying that your identification of attributes has an objective validity that theirs lacks.

uptherebels

_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.

despite concerns from some. there would be concerns regardless of the 12 weeks.

Since you have once again decided to ignore my post(s) to you (since you appear to prefer replying to my posts to OTHERS more) I will move on to these points:

end of the road wrote: »

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

When it comes to a fetus at 16 weeks of before I struggle to see it in terms of "removing the rights of the unborn" so much as I notice no one, least of all yourself, has ever explained to me one single basis for why such a fetus should have rights in the first place.

Hard to see the "removal" of something I see no basis for being there in the first place. It just doesn't parse for me. Sure current law may have such protections, but I genuinely see no basis for that state of affairs.

end of the road wrote: »

the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually

Firstly there is no "will" here. A rather significantly high proportion of pregnancies miscarry in this period. Your certainty about their fate is imagination based only.

Secondly when you are saying here is that it is NOT A BABY now. The moment you say "X becomes Y" you are saying "X is NOT Y". So thanks for making our point for us!

end of the road wrote: »

so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately.

Then lock all men up because they are all potential rapists. Prosecuting them when they BECOME rapists is clearly not enough. That is the kind of nonsense that comes from basing rights in the present on potentials from the future.

Someone or something either has rights, or it does not. Aside from asserting that we should do it, you have given no basis AT ALL at ANY TIME for why we should manifest rights in the present based on what something MIGHT be in the future.

Let alone why we should do so at the expense of the rights, well being, and free choices of someone (the pregnant woman) who actually is a sentient being with rights in the here and now. So double fail from you on that score.

end of the road wrote: »

it has to be able to develop first

Why? You assert this time and time again and every time you are asked to substantiate it you.... well... quite simply run away and ignore the post.

I repeat my thought experiment from before. Imagine I build a gAI that will not just be conscious and sentient when I turn it on, but will in fact be capable of levels of consciousness and sentience beyond anything you and I are capable of.

All that stops it reaching that potential is me flicking the on switch. Why is/should there be ANY moral onus on me to flick that switch rather than, say, dismantle the entire machine and build toasters and waffle makers out of it?