One eyed Jack wrote: » Bannsidhe had already assumed I held the opinion she was suggesting. Stop being coy. It wasn't the benign question you're making it out to be at all.
volchitsa wrote: » Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » ofll I consider the arguments on the pro life side progress. Decades and centuries ago masturbation was considered a sin. Also frivolous sex and after that birth control became the next Great Evil and the argument was always the same. Every Sperm is Sacred! So now after decades of bitterly fighting tooth and nail for every fraction of an inch, anyone who still says masturbation, sex and birth control are a Sin Unto the Lord sounds like a complete nutter and the anti choice brigade is very carefully steering away from the Bible basher image. After the above conceded retreats, the battle line has now moved into sperm and egg combining to form a zygote, or fully functioning and sentient human being as the anti side will have it. Feel free to say "no it isn't" and discredit your entire argument. I'm not a fan of abortion, but sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAA!!!! I I CAN'T HEAR IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!" is not the answer. In the end it will be the majority that decides and you will have to concede this battle line as well.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » And for 2 of those 3, we must repeal the 8th. Good to have you on board.
sondagefaux wrote: » In Ireland, it's legally impossible to get an abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality (FFA) or where continuing a pregnancy threatens causing permanent disability to a pregnant woman. The only way to change this is to either amend or repeal the existing constitutional provisions about abortion. It seems that you do want to see abortion available in Ireland after all.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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!
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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?
end of the road wrote: » if some pro-life clynics are telling lies to people then it stands to reason some pro-choice clynics also tell lies. the reality is some people tell lies.
end of the road wrote: » i don't support abortion on demand. however, it is not realistic to be able to stop someone going abroad to procure it. no amount of rhetoric and twisting will change the reality of my actual view, which i have made clear a plenty in this and other abortion threads. it's very simple to understand, and no amount of your lies will change reality..
end of the road wrote: » i explained why such protections should be there. the unborn doesn't magically appear at 16 weeks, it has to develop to that stage.
end of the road wrote: » if the unborn are to be protected then it is best they are protected from the start of their development.
end of the road wrote: » i haven't made any point for you. the fact is the baby has to develop, so it has to be given protection from implantation to insure that bar extreme circumstances, it's rights to grow and develop are upheld and it is not terminated via medical means.
end of the road wrote: » a nonsense argument that has no basis in terms of this discussion.
end of the road wrote: » no fail from me at all, i have given reasons why the unborn must receive protection bar extreme circumstances.
end of the road wrote: » there is no right to abortion on demand in this state nor should there.
end of the road wrote: » sentients isn't the only level on which we judge life in ireland, we recognise the rights of the would be sentient as well, to insure it can become sentient.
end of the road wrote: » your thought experiment is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.
kylith wrote: » If someone you admit is not dense cannot work out what you are getting at perhaps you could state it again in plain English.
Ok, so you think that counselling services will push women toward abortions, despite offering no evidence of that, and there being hard evidence of the exact opposite. I have copypasted an article from the times below so no-one will have to deal with the paywall: TLDR: Crisis pregnany ‘counsellor’ tells woman that abortion will give her cancer, turn her into an abuser, lies about abortifactant pill, shows pictures of 20 week termination.
Untrue. Because of the 8th a pregnant woman can have procedures such as episiotomies and c-sections performed without their consent. They can have their membranes ruptured, which is against medical best practise, to speed labour. If they try to refuse they can be brought to court. Pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer can have treatment delayed until the cancer has spread sufficiently to be a risk to her life. Women who need medication to stay healthy may be denied that medication if they become pregnant.
No-one wants to have an abortion because it’s a terribly unpleasant procedure. No-one wants to have a root canal or a double bypass either, but if they feel that they need it they will have it. Before Irish women could travel to the UK they threw themselves down stairs, gave themselves alcohol poisoning, took scalding baths, and ruptured membranes with knitting needles. Abortion not being legal does not stop women from getting abortions, it makes abortions less safe. Since abortions being illegal doesn’t stop women having abortions wouldn’t it be better if those abortions could be done safely and legally, so that those women can get proper aftercare should anything go wrong, without having to fear legal issues?
So, you want to make women have children they can’t afford, when they don’t want to have them, but you’re also against giving them enough money that they can feel that abortion isn’t the only option for a pregnancy they can’t afford?
That’s good, not all do. And it’s a common remark on threads here about the wages gap that of course women shouldn’t expect to earn as much as men if they’re going to take all that time off to have children.
It’s still relevant to this debate. Women who never want to have children cannot be electively sterilised, and are then denied abortion in Ireland if their contraception fails.
Studies, which have already been quoted, show that more and better sex ed is linked to lower teenage pregnancy.
And if that education is lacking in the family where can they get it except school?
Currently a lot of schools draft in Accord, a Catholic agency, to do sex education. Getting a religious group in to do this is patently ridiculous.
Where are condoms available free of charge? I have never seen this outside of one free one at college rag week.
And for women who don’t qualify for a medical card things like the pill, coil, or implant is quite expensive.
....... wrote: » Jack - just to say that your mysterious experience does not = evidence. You still havent even told us about this unlikely experience that gives you so much exposure to crisis pregnancies yet leaves you so ignorant on then negative effects of the 8th Amendment.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I offered evidence of it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » No. You didn't. You said "I am aware of..." That's not evidence. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.Then you claimed that because anti-abortionist 'clinics' tell lies then obvs actual family planning clinics advise abortions. Well, yes they do - as an option.
One eyed Jack wrote: » And that's why I preceded what I said with 'not necessarily', because generally the 8th isn't an obstruction to the vast, vast majority of women who are pregnant and want to continue their pregnancy and give birth and want to raise a child. That's one of the reasons I think at least from my experiences of talking to women and young girls about these issues that they simply can't relate to some of the issues raised by the existence of the 8th amendment - because it's never been an issue that they have personally been affected by, so they aren't aware of the potential issues for others. They can go all the way through pregnancy and never have to even think about the 8th amendment. I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong, I'm just going to say I'm not in the business of scaremongering people.
Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.
They're slowly cottoning onto that idea in the States whereas in Ireland where we are about 20 years behind the social curve, there's now talks of introducing tax relief for hiring child minders while both parents go out to work to try and ease the financial burden of childcare. Both my parents worked and we were all practically raised by our neighbour who never took a penny from my parents, but who managed to take care of all seven of us on a State pension! Of course with every generation, expectations rise, and it would be nothing short of a miraculous achievement were a pensioner able to do that today :pac:
One eyed Jack wrote: » I offered evidence of it. You don't accept my word is good enough and that's fair enough. I didn't question a single person who gave their accounts of their experiences
One eyed Jack wrote: » Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above?
One eyed Jack wrote: » It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would be more in favour of a system that provides intervention and support long before any woman would ever get to that point, before they ever even were to become pregnant in the first place.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves
One eyed Jack wrote: » Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yeah that last exchange with nozz was just painful
One eyed Jack wrote: » in a Catholic ethos school, I really wouldn't expect they'll be inviting anyone other than a religious group in to give talks on relationships and sex education.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Personally, I would suggest it's best left to the parents.
....... wrote: » How is listing the options available giving advice they didnt want? Are you suggesting that by informing a woman that abortion is a choice this is advice she doesnt want to hear?
One eyed Jack wrote: » No I didn't? I offered that as evidence before you ever posted about fake abortion clinics! I was making the point in relation to young women who went to family planning clinics looking for advice about continuing their pregnancy, not looking for advice about abortion. In case it isn't yet clear - that's not the kind of advice they went there looking for, and that's not the kind of advice they wanted. Geez, plain english, it really isn't that hard, and it shouldn't be this tedious.
