nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I question that too, with the result the person I question on it simply runs away. Usually running away with cop out canards like the question is " is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.".

The moral superiority of realizing potential life is simply not a given. In fact there is a whole movement called "Anti Natalism" that suggests that it is positively immoral to bring new life into the world.

Now while I do not agree with the views of anti natalism in general, their arguments can not simply be swept under a rug. And their arguments very much call into question the assumption (and with users like eotr the simply outright assertions) that realizing potential life into real life is somehow some kind of moral obligation.

With respect, you're usingd loaded and inaccurate terminology there, which will tend - unintentionally, no doubt - to poison the well.

An embryo isn't potentially alive; it is actually alive. The issue is not whether we should bring new life into the world; it is whether, given that we have already brought new life into the world, that new life makes moral or ethical claims on us and, if so, what the nature and extent of those claims is.

I think arguments that frame this question in terms of a life that is yet to be are based on a premise which is flat-out, demonstrably, objectively false. The pro-choice position deserves better arguments that this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

With respect, you're usingd loaded and inaccurate terminology there, which will tend - unintentionally, no doubt - to poison the well.

An embryo isn't potentially alive; it is actually alive.

Not inaccurate or misleading at all then, as I have been VERY clear in MULTIPLE posts throughout this thread on the contextual differences in the words like "alive" and "life" and so forth. That you have not kept up with that, does not mean the error lies with me.

The term "Human life" has different meanings in different contexts. In terms of pure biological taxonomy it means one thing... which is generally what you are referring to here. In terms of things like rights and philosophy and so forth it more means "personhood". And it is the concepts of "personhood" that I think sets the context in Fizzlesque's post when discussing realizing the potential life of a fetus. I doubt anyone is dumb enough here to think, or think that anyone else thinks, that the fetus is not "alive".

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is not whether we should bring new life into the world; it is whether, given that we have already brought new life into the world, that new life makes moral or ethical claims on us and, if so, what the nature and extent of those claims is.

Exactly what I say throughout this entire thread, and many others. Though I also say it a slightly different way. Which is that given humans are in the business of killing "life" all the time (our paper industry, our farming industry, our meat industry, our medical industry... and so on) what attributes must a "life" form possess before it places moral and ethical concerns on us that other "life" does not?

The only such attributes I have identified or, I hasten to add lest we repeat the content of my previous post which you ignored, have been identified TO me........ happen to be attributes the fetus generally being aborted lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY. To the point they do not just lack those attributes, the lack even many of the pre-requisites for them.

So the moral and ethical concerns you speak of, which people imagine are placed on us, are not grounded in any way anyone has yet shown to me. In over 2 decades of inquiry. Perhaps someone will amble along shorty and finally set that to rights.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think arguments that frame this question in terms of a life that is yet to be are based on a premise which is flat-out, demonstrably, objectively false. The pro-choice position deserves better arguments that this.

Indeed. I just wish someone would come along and make them. Because the pro-choice "arguments" I have been presented so far in 20 years of inquiry into the subject are between paltry (all life must be protected except, you know, the life that isn't and shouldn't) and outright embarrassing (oooo look it's tongue waggles when you play music at it).

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

An embryo isn't potentially alive; it is actually alive. The issue is not whether we should bring new life into the world; it is whether, given that we have already brought new life into the world, that new life makes moral or ethical claims on us and, if so, what the nature and extent of those claims is.

Saying an embryo is alive and human is not enough.

My appendix is alive. It is clearly a human appendix. Is it a human life? Nope.

Calling an embryo "new life" is already loaded language.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Saying an embryo is alive and human is not enough.

My appendix is alive. It is clearly a human appendix. Is it a human life? Nope.

Calling an embryo "new life" is already loaded language.

But it's accurate. Whereas calling it "potential life" is loaded and inaccurate.

I'd rather be advancing an argument which relies on objectively true claims. Wouldn't you?

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's accurate. Whereas calling it "potential life" is loaded and inaccurate.

I'd rather be advancing an argument which relies on objectively true claims. Wouldn't you?

Absolutely, but the accuracy of any term is contextual as well. Context give form to language and meaning. And that can not be ignored either.

So when someone is talking about the "potential life" of a fetus, and generally no one is dumb enough to think the fetus is not biologically alive, context should inform you that their meaning goes beyond mere biology and taxonomy, should it not?

So the phrase "potential life" only becomes "loaded and inaccurate" if you willfully contrive to ignore that context. Contriving to do so would not be useful or, from where I am sitting, have any useful motivation outside of the extremes of linguistic pedantry.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not inaccurate or misleading at all then, as I have been VERY clear in MULTIPLE posts throughout this thread on the contextual differences in the words like "alive" and "life" and so forth. That you have not kept up with that, does not mean the error lies with me.

The problem isn't that I haven't kept up with it, Nozz. It's that you haven't. I just quoted a post from you in which you echoed Fizzlesque's language and referred to carrying a pregnancy to term as "realizing potential life into real life".

Using language like that is handing your pro-life interlocutors a gift on a plate, garnished with parsley. The embryo is real life; it has already been realised. You don't think pro-lifers aren't going to relish suggesting that, if pro-choicers advance arguments which apparently require flat out denial of objective truth, that must be because they don't have any actual sound arguments?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The term "Human life" has different meanings in different contexts. In terms of pure biological taxonomy it means one thing... which is generally what you are referring to here. In terms of things like rights and philosophy and so forth it more means "personhood". And it is the concepts of "personhood" that I think sets the context in Fizzlesque's post when discussing realizing the potential life of a fetus. I doubt anyone is dumb enough here to think, or think that anyone else thinks, that the fetus is not "alive".

No. But they are going to think that you have to say that it's not alive, because if you said that it was not alive in a way that engages our respect, protection, etc, you'd be called upon to justify that claim, and you don't want to be called upon to do that because, in the end, you can only assert it as something you believe; you can't demonstrate it as something objectively true.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. I just wish someone would come along and make them. Because the pro-choice "arguments" I have been presented so far in 20 years of inquiry into the subject are between paltry (all life must be protected except, you know, the life that isn't and shouldn't) and outright embarrassing (oooo look it's tongue waggles when you play music at it).

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or when you say "pro-choice" in that paragraph you actually mean "pro-life".

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Jack's post is very clear - he is talking about a woman with a crisis pregnancy who goes to a clinic and wants to hear about all her options except abortion.

However, it is patronising of him to imagine that this woman he has imagined cannot just say "no thanks, against my beliefs" when offered such information, instead this anti-abortion pregnant woman must apparently not be tempted lest she eat the forbidden fruit or something like that.

I'd love to know the rest of that conversation. Like, after she was told that abortion might be her best bet did she say 'that's not an option' and get other advice?

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's accurate. Whereas calling it "potential life" is loaded and inaccurate.

I'd rather be advancing an argument which relies on objectively true claims. Wouldn't you?

It's living tissue, certainly, but is it alive? In terms of the signifiers of life; growth, respiration, reaction, etc. it ranks lower than an amoeba.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem isn't that I haven't kept up with it, Nozz. It's that you haven't. I just quoted a post from you in which you echoed Fizzlesque's language and referred to carrying a pregnancy to term as "realizing potential life into real life".

Which means I have kept up, you haven't. AGAIN: We all know the entity after conception is "alive". I have, at least, not yet met a person who is not aware of that. So context suggests that when we are talking about realizing the potential life of that entity..... we are NOT talking about what you are.

If Pro-choice people wish to mirror what you are doing here, and feign ignorance of what context informs them is the meaning of any given term, in any given situation then I am happy to call them out on that dishonesty when they employ it. As long as I am clear on my own terms, and what I mean by them, I see no reason to modify my own approach... which is honest....... to pander to theirs....... which is not.

Peregrinus wrote: »

you'd be called upon to justify that claim

If nothing else, I think my posting history shows me to be someone who is happy and open to be calling out to justify my claims, elaborate on my meanings, and generally openly discuss what I mean (and do not mean) by anything I have said. I relish and even worship discourse. If something I do stimulates it then.... well..... yay.

Peregrinus wrote: »

you don't want to be called upon to do that because, in the end, you can only assert it as something you believe; you can't demonstrate it as something objectively true.

Not entirely clear what claim you are talking about in particular. However I do not think anything about rights, morals, ethics, and so forth IS "objectively true". Morality is a subjective realm that appears to only exist in, and because of, humans. There is nothing objectively true about it.

All we can do in moral discourse is show that our subjective positions are not merely arbitrary whims, but are grounded in sensible and rational arguments based on what evidence and data the real world affords us. And I am more than happy to demonstrate the rationale behind how I ground moral and ethical concern while showing such rationality is often absent in many counter claims on where and why we should be grounding it.

So if someone wants to call upon me to offer the rational behind why I think the fetus is "not alive in a way" that warrants affording it moral and ethical concerns......... then the idea that I do not want to be called on it is your idea. It certainly is not mine.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or when you say "pro-choice" in that paragraph you actually mean "pro-life".

Yes my fail. I misread Pro choice as pro life in YOUR post and it went down hill from there. Apologies.

I am not sure what "better arguments" you think the pro choice position deserves. The simple fact for me is that a huge majority of the entire abortion debate boils down to whether the fetus being aborted has rights or not. Specifically the right to life.

And my entire position on that debate is based on noticing that no attribute the fetus generally being aborted has....... are attributes I have seen ANYONE at any time EVER meaningfully, coherently, or successfully use to ground moral and ethical concern.

I therefore simply see no moral or ethical concern with the termination of such a life/entity. It is, at the point of termination, the moral equivalent of an amoeba to me. And "Well people do not share that opinion, so there" tends quite often to be the single rebuttal that conclusion ever attracts.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

It's living tissue, certainly, but is it alive? In terms of the signifiers of life; growth, respiration, reaction, etc. it ranks lower than an amoeba.

Yes, it's alive. It can die; therefore it's alive. And it spontaneously grows and develops in an ordered way. Even if at a particular stage of development it doesn't, e.g., respire, it is actively developing the capacity to respire. And so on.

The only way I can make sense of this is to see the life of any individual as a continuum from conception through growth, complexity, maturity, etc and eventually to decay and death. And the whole point about a continuum is that, well, it continues. We've got a continuing, living individual here. Pro-choice arguments which start out by denying or ignoring this are not going to convince anyone. We need better.

But, if I'm honest, arguments about the definitions of words, even words like "life" and "person", rarely change minds either way. I find arguments which involve characterising the foetus as "not alive" deeply unconvincing, but Nozz obviously feels they carry much weight. Similarly, arguments that the foetus isn't a "person" until it is sentient (or insert any other developmental marker of choice here) don't seem very convincing to me, but Nozz finds them powerful. And Nozz and I are both pro-choice; you can imagine that someone who is pro-life is going to be as unimpressed with Nozz's arguments as he is with pro-life arguments.

The truth is that a pro-choicer will define concepts life "life" and "person" in the way he does precisely because he is a pro-choicer, and the same is true for pro-lifers. Each of them is simply asserting his beliefs in the form of a defintion which assumes the correctness/validity/truth of his beliefs. The definition is obviously not going to appeal to anybody who doesn't already share the underlying beliefs; therefore these definition-based arguments may look powerful and compelling to the people who already agree with you, but they will carry no weight at all with people who don't already agree with you. But it's those people you need to convince if you are actually to get anywhere.

Which is why I think these defintion based arguments are sterile. Ultimately people are simply asserting inconsistent beliefs, neither of which can be demonstrated to have any objective validity. It may be true that, e.g, a foetus does not respire, and that this is an appropriate qualification to statements that it is alive. So what? You may attach great ethical significance to a fully-developed capacity for respiration; I may not. And, as is the nature of ethical beliefs, neither of us can demonstrate our own belief to be objectively correct, or the other's belief to be objectively false. This gets us nowhere.

The only effective pro-choice argument (effective for changing someone's mind, I mean) is one which proceeds from some belief or value that your interlocutor is already committed to, but whose implications in the context of abortion he has not yet worked through. Those are the pro-choice arguments that need to be developed and deployed.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's accurate.

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Calling it "new life" is most of the way to saying a new human life has come into being. But to be a human life, the living thing should be a human being, not an appendix. Is a fertilized cell in a test tube a human being? I certainly don't think so.

Even the 8th amendment does not go so far as to say that the "unborn" is a human being.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

We've got a continuing, living individual here. Pro-choice arguments which start out by denying or ignoring this are not going to convince anyone. We need better.

Then lets find such a person espousing that denial and take care of them. I am all for internal debate against my own "side" as much as against the other. For example I often explain to other pro-choice people why using "rape" as an argument is a bad move.

I see no such person here at this time however. I sure as hell know I am not one. Who exactly is it you have identified as someone who denys or ignores the continuum of life or a human life form?

What I do, and I love viewing things as a continuum myself so I love that you go there as it breaks out of the "box" like thinking most humans seem to employ, is notice that different things happen at different identifiable stages along that continuum.

And often, alas, we use the same word to describe them. The word "life" is similar to words like "Religion" and "Sport" to me. They are umbrella terms that massively change in differing contexts.

But along that continuum thing happen, and come into play, which I think ground moral and ethical concern. But abortion by choice, the near totality of it (96 to 98%) occurs WELL before any event on that continuum that warrants ethical concern coming into play. And that simple fact is the core point of my ENTIRE approach to the abortion debate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if I'm honest, arguments about the definitions of words, even words like "life" and "person", rarely change minds either way.

Absolutely agree. Arguments about the definitions of words rarely (ever?) change minds. However the arguments that DO change minds often require that we be clear from the outset....... and alas repeatedly along the continuum of the conversation........... what we mean by the words we use. Language, for good and bad, is not static. Sometimes it would be nice if it were! But the wealth of human art and literature we would lose to pay for that benefit, is not worth paying.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Similarly, arguments that the foetus isn't a "person" until it is sentient (or insert any other developmental marker of choice here) don't seem very convincing to me, but Nozz finds them powerful.

Well sure I do. If you can build me a model of "personhood" devoid of sentience I would likely chance that stance however. In fact I was only listening to a philosophy podcast last night were they were discussing what is known as the "Philosophical zombie". That is, the idea of a you or a me existing that does all the same things we can do, but somehow the "lights are not on".

If personhood is not, or can not, be grounded in sentience then where is it grounded? What other attributes and pre-requisites do you think are in play when defining "personhood" or identifying an entity that has it?

For example if we created a complete General Artificial Intelligence tomorrow (and many believe we are not far off, though I am skeptical as to the time lines there) what attributes would define.... for want of a better word...... it's humanity. If the lights were not on, if it was not sentient.......... what moral and ethical concern would it hold for us?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that a pro-choicer will define concepts life "life" and "person" in the way he does precisely because he is a pro-choicer, and the same is true for pro-lifers.

Exactly why I wrote the "arbitrary whim" text in the post above this one. If humans are prone to defining terms to fit their own biases, then the only way forward in discourse is to unpack, forcibly if needs be, how they arrived at those definitions.

And through unpacking it we see if someone defined it merely as a whim of bias, or if there is a rational and informed thought process that went behind it. I have been accused before of defining my terms retrospectively to fit my biases. The accusations are false. I approached the abortion debate asking some basic questions, and the answers to those questions led me to the definitions I use. Not the other way around. Questions such as "What are rights" "What is morality" "What are rights and morality FOR" "What is it we actually mediate moral and ethical concern on, and what is it we SHOULD be doing so on" "What attributes do entities we have moral and ethical concern for actually have, that entities without do not" and so forth.

Without that approach, the entire post you just wrote is a very very long way of merely espousing the old adage of "We all have the right to our opinion". An adage that does little but shut down discourse.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may attach great ethical significance to a fully-developed capacity for respiration; I may not.

Same thing again with the "arbitrary whim" stuff I write about above. If one person things respiration is a useful mediation point, and another things sentience is, then the only progress forward is to discuss with them WHY they think so and see if there is a "There there" as they say.

I suspect if you unpack respiration with someone who thinks that is important.......... or the heart beat as that is a MUCH more common one in people against abortion.......... you will find the sound of crickets is about all you get in return. Whereas I can talk at nauseating length about the rational and foundations behind why I point to sentience as the cue.

So it would be an error I trust you will not make to assume some sort of equivalence between the two.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, as is the nature of ethical beliefs, neither of us can demonstrate our own belief to be objectively correct, or the other's belief to be objectively false. This gets us nowhere.

Thankfully, as I said in the post above, no one is suggestion we have/need to. Yay!

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only effective pro-choice argument (effective for changing someone's mind, I mean) is one which proceeds from some belief or value that your interlocutor is already committed to, but whose implications in the context of abortion he has not yet worked through. Those are the pro-choice arguments that need to be developed and deployed.

I have never subscribed to the "right/wrong" approach to changing minds. Rather I think the movement on any given issue, abortion included, should be made up of a diversity of voices......... all talking in parallel about the issues and approaches they know the most about.

My areas is not, for example, law. I am a relative lay man to that area. My area of training, interest, education and qualifications however lie in science, philosophy, religion and education. So I stick to that.

ALL arguments need to be developed and deployed. Not some unison march where we all develop and say the same things. Because a person convinced by one argument, would not be convinced by the others. The diversity of minds out there, requires a diversity in approaches to changing them. And I will stick to what I am good at, and hope you do the same, and together we will influence different people.

And influence, however small, I have. I have been told in public on forums like this, and in private messaging, that I have had effects. Perhaps, if I had not been told that, I would have stopped long ago. So you can blame them for what you have to put up with

Birdie Num Num

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Are you saying that it is not life at all or that it is existing life?

nozzferrahhtoo

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Are you saying that it is not life at all or that it is existing life?

It is alive in the sense of being a distinct biological entity that is.... well.... doing it's thing. Taking in energy and ordering that energy for higher function and so forth.

But when it comes to rights and morals and ethics it is not "Alive" in any meaningful sense that distinguishes it morally from..... say.... an amoeba or an ant or so forth. In fact I would tend to have a tad more moral and ethical concern for an ant than a 12 week gestated fetus.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Calling it "new life" is most of the way to saying a new human life has come into being. But to be a human life, the living thing should be a human being, not an appendix. Is a fertilized cell in a test tube a human being? I certainly don't think so.

Well, I've already flagged the uselessness of arguments about the definitions of words or terms. But, since you ask:

Is the fertilized cell you speak of a fertilised human cell? If so, then we can justify calling whatever it is "human".

Does it exist? If so, we can justify calling it a "being".

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply? But, as we discuss this, what will emerge is something like this: you apply the term "human being" to entities that you consider to have moral claims upon us by virtue of their human characteristics. You don't consider that mere biological humanity, of itself, is enough to engage a degree of moral respect that would prevent us terminating a pregnancy, but you do consider that, say sentience is a characteristic that engages this degree of respect. So if it was human, and existing, and sentient, you'd say, yeah, that's a human being.

But what this boils down to is this; you don't call the entity a "human being" at any stage where you consider that the characteristics it possesses don't give rise to an insurmountable ethical objection to terminating its life. But, if so, then you can't validly argue that we can abort it because it's not a human being; that's just a circular argument.

Call Me Jimmy

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I have a question that keeps resurfacing in my mind, every time I read threads like this. That question is, why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I don't mean how can life on earth be considered a good thing, because I know it can be good, great, even amazing at times, but it can also be a truly difficult experience some of the time, or all of the time, for some people. To qualify, I'm not saying I don't understand or appreciate that life can be a wonderful experience, but it is, unfortunately, a painful experience for many.

I ask this as someone who continued with an unplanned pregnancy, and relinquished her child to parents that wanted a (second, adopted) child. I read threads like this one in a confused state of mind. There is the part of me that understands how traumatic an unplanned pregnancy can be - I know that feeling of being unsupported and pregnant. Then there is another side of me, the side that hopes my child is happy she was given a chance to live a life on this planet, even though that life wasn't lived with her biological mother.

Although I don't feel the same as this thread's (and similar thread's) pro-life posters, I find myself strangely comforted by their 'life above all else' train of thought. It is for selfish reasons I find comfort in their dogged insistence that life, even in its very early stage, should be given the chance to be born. That selfish reason is that I hope my child prefers the life I gave her, with a family brand new, to not having a life at all.

But, this comes at continued cost to me. Twenty eight years later, I still struggle with the life I now have without the child I gave birth to. I hope she loves being on this planet - this planet that can be as wonderful as it can be horrendous.

I doubt it's necessary for me to outline the pain this life can bring but I suspect that some people don't ever get to see the beauty. I'm lucky, although I feel tremendous emotional pain a lot of the time, I also feel joy and see beauty even though the measures can sometimes be unbalanced.

How do hard-stance pro-life people see this world? How can they be sure that to be given a life on earth is a great gift?

I hope they're right, and to be given a life is better than to not be given a life (on earth -who knows what else is on offer elsewhere?) because something I wasn't prepared for, when choosing to place my child with a new family, was the guilt. Level one guilt being not keeping her with me, but level two guilt (that accumulated over the many years since) is a whole new level for me - the guilt that comes with knowing that this world knows how to deliver pain, and I sent her out there to deal with it alone (by alone, I mean without me). It's crippling sometimes.

To try return from my off-tangent and back to my question: why is it deemed that life on earth is a blessing when life on earth is also almost guaranteed to bring some pain, and in some cases, a lot of pain?

At all costs. Is that really fair?

Because we can't base a functioning society on the idea that life is worthless, even negative. You are living in a largely functioning society and the pain you feel about your decision would be the least of your worries if you lived in a society that did not endeavor to hold human life as valuable - if it didn't work off that assumption.

If you can still have the ability to care for other people, you know you don't want that possibility to be true. Your psyche fights it at every moment, you think you are settled on 'life isn't worth it' - even just for yourself - and time comes back with a retort. That's not to mention that no matter how bad most people feel, even if they kill themselves, most of them know that something went wrong for them and that it wasn't so bad that everyone else needed to go with them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is the fertilized cell you speak of a fertilised human cell? If so, then we can justify calling whatever it is "human".

In a conversation about biological taxonomy yes. In a conversation talking about personhood, no. Again: Context is everything.

Alas that we have the same word for two distinctly different concepts is a problem. No denying it. And the problem manifests itself by a person using the term in one context, and then leaping the chasm to the next concept acting like using the term still holds.

And it is not just here we have this problem. We have it in discussions on religion for example. We have one term "religion" for things that are measurably better and worse than each other. Yet if you take something like Jainism and something like Islam, the word "religion" is one of the few things that connects them. If you take Bowls and MMA Cage death matches, one of the few things that connects them is the word "sport".

Language is rich and diverse so often. But limited and misleading much of the time too. And having one word describe vastly differing things is alas something that can derail and cloud otherwise fruitful discourse.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply?

Sure but again context comes to the rescue. You do not need to look into what further characteristics does it imply in general (which could be many). But what characteristics does it imply SPECIFICALLY that would give it rights. Or cause it to have moral and ethical concern for us.

And invariably the things people identify under that context and constraint, turn out to be things the fetus generally being aborted by choice (the near totality in or before week 16) lacks in pretty much every meaning of the word lack.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply?

The important part is that human beings have rights. Cells do not.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The important part is that human beings have rights. Cells do not.

And this is the bit that's always danced around.

The only thing that differentiates a "human cell" from a "human being" is that the latter can survive independently - i.e. without a permanent connection to another biological host.

When you get down to it, that's the point at which we can say it's no longer a "potential person" and it becomes an "actual person".

This makes people uncomfortable because no matter which way you slice the argument, there is no ethical or logical basis to say that a foetus up to this point is any more a person than a liver or a kidney. It bears no specific qualities that make it any more deserving of protection than the aforementioned organs, or a tree sapling, or a canine foetus.

Potential to become a person doesn't make them a person. I could potentially become president, but I'm not going to be given all of the rights and privileges of the president because of this "potential". I only get those rights and privileges when I actually become president.

PhoenixParker

Does it really matter if an embryo is "alive"?

I don't believe it is, but for arguments sake let's suppose it's a tiny miniature human.

At best it's a tiny miniature human on life support so advanced that we haven't yet mimicked it. Only one person can and does run that life support.

We regularly switch off life support if there's no prospect of recovery (fatal fatal abnormality, really poor prognosis where it falls below FFA) so there's certainly no basis for preventing FFA abortion on the grounds of "life".

Suppose it's potentially a healthy baby, should we also oblige the carrier to continue to offer life support in the face of mental distress or health complications? We don't oblige people to donate organs, even after they're dead; we don't oblige people to donate blood. We don't oblige people in general to inconvenience themselves even slightly to save the life of another person.

Heck you can sign up to be a blood marrow donor and legally you can withdraw consent at any time, including when it would mean the certain death of the person matched with you. Everyone might consider you morally repugnant but your legal right is there.

Human life is protected but not to the extent that we force people to save others, unless you're a woman and it's an unborn "child".

What's the difference?

As I see it, men would be impacted by such obligations so everyone understands how such obligations would contradict basic freedoms and rights. Abortion, affecting only women is somehow a popular exception to bodily autonomy.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

Potential to become a person doesn't make them a person. I could potentially become president, but I'm not going to be given all of the rights and privileges of the president because of this "potential". I only get those rights and privileges when I actually become president.

Ah yeah, but there is no real prospect of you becoming the president (no offence...)

The President - elect (taking the US and other similar systems) will - barring anything untoward occurring - become the president. He is still not an actual president though. He is still only a potential president. Yet he is given some particular rights that the president has; not full rights mind you, but some rights and privileges that reflect where he is on the continuum to becoming the president.

So, you are kind of like a sperm; the president elect is like the foetus...:p

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

The President - elect (taking the US and other similar systems) will - barring anything untoward occurring - become the president. He is still not an actual president though. He is still only a potential president.

Exactly. And he is not assigned the rights of the President until he becomes the president.

Likewise a foetus isn't assigned the rights of a person until they become one.

When that is, is more clear-cut than we like to debate. The 50% viability point (i.e. the point at which the majority of foetuses can survive independently from the mother) is 24.5 weeks and has been there for quite some time.

So we define a "person" after this point and a "foetus" before that point because it makes no real sense to do otherwise. Because obstetrics is not an exact science, a "safety" margin of 1.5-2 weeks seems reasonable, which puts us at 22/23 weeks.

And if technology improvements allow the viability point to change, we move the needle.

You cannot assign personhood rights to something which is not a person. A pre-viable foetus is no more special than any other non-person.

One eyed Jack

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I have a question that keeps resurfacing in my mind, every time I read threads like this. That question is, why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I don't mean how can life on earth be considered a good thing, because I know it can be good, great, even amazing at times, but it can also be a truly difficult experience some of the time, or all of the time, for some people. To qualify, I'm not saying I don't understand or appreciate that life can be a wonderful experience, but it is, unfortunately, a painful experience for many.

I ask this as someone who continued with an unplanned pregnancy, and relinquished her child to parents that wanted a (second, adopted) child. I read threads like this one in a confused state of mind. There is the part of me that understands how traumatic an unplanned pregnancy can be - I know that feeling of being unsupported and pregnant. Then there is another side of me, the side that hopes my child is happy she was given a chance to live a life on this planet, even though that life wasn't lived with her biological mother.

Although I don't feel the same as this thread's (and similar thread's) pro-life posters, I find myself strangely comforted by their 'life above all else' train of thought. It is for selfish reasons I find comfort in their dogged insistence that life, even in its very early stage, should be given the chance to be born. That selfish reason is that I hope my child prefers the life I gave her, with a family brand new, to not having a life at all.

But, this comes at continued cost to me. Twenty eight years later, I still struggle with the life I now have without the child I gave birth to. I hope she loves being on this planet - this planet that can be as wonderful as it can be horrendous.

I doubt it's necessary for me to outline the pain this life can bring but I suspect that some people don't ever get to see the beauty. I'm lucky, although I feel tremendous emotional pain a lot of the time, I also feel joy and see beauty even though the measures can sometimes be unbalanced.

How do hard-stance pro-life people see this world? How can they be sure that to be given a life on earth is a great gift?

I hope they're right, and to be given a life is better than to not be given a life (on earth -who knows what else is on offer elsewhere?) because something I wasn't prepared for, when choosing to place my child with a new family, was the guilt. Level one guilt being not keeping her with me, but level two guilt (that accumulated over the many years since) is a whole new level for me - the guilt that comes with knowing that this world knows how to deliver pain, and I sent her out there to deal with it alone (by alone, I mean without me). It's crippling sometimes.

To try return from my off-tangent and back to my question: why is it deemed that life on earth is a blessing when life on earth is also almost guaranteed to bring some pain, and in some cases, a lot of pain?

At all costs. Is that really fair?

You pretty much answer your own question from my perspective anyway, although I've never believed in life at all costs, because I don't think that really is fair, and there are and have often been a number of circumstances where I thought either abortion or euthanasia may have been the better option. However it was never my decision to make.

I've always been the sort of person who has looked at things and thought "it doesn't have to be like this, there has to be a better way", and that's what's always driven me as opposed to saying there's too much pain in the world, what would possess anyone to impose another life on an already overpopulated planet?

For one thing the overpopulation argument is far more nuanced than it's made out here, and there's no reason we couldn't seriously tackle poverty in developing countries if we really, really wanted to. Personally, I've always preferred to work closer to home, tackle the problems I see on my own doorstep. I rarely have time to get contemplative about global problems when there's so much needs to be done within my own community already.

I don't think being given life on earth is some great gift. Quite frankly, I agree with you, it's shìte most of the time. But, I believe that everyone should be given the same opportunity to make life better for themselves and for each other, and I don't think that can ever be achieved in one generation alone, but it takes each new generation to get closer to that goal, and so that's why I prefer to give as many people as I can a chance to contribute to that goal, because none of us can achieve it on our own, and it doesn't have to be like this.

I don't want the world to be a miserable hell-hole that people wouldn't bring a child into, so I try and do something about it. That's all.

drkpower

Seamus, you didn't address the point; about the president elect getting some rights despite not being the actual president. But carry on....

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Great news, thanks.

Even better news - This is the whole sentence including the bit you left out

"In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty, although in the case of replace much depends on the wording that is proposed...."

That's a big but of a caveat to be ignoring when it's clarification you are seeking.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

An excellent reason to get rid of the 8th Amendment - because if the world you bring a child into is Ireland and that child is female and she wants to have children some day - the 8th will negatively affect her maternity care.

The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?

Look, I see your point, I do, I just don't agree that it outweighs the need for the 8th to remain in place.

I was told last night of a woman who had to have a surgery for an ectopic pregnancy rather than medicine - because, as the consultant told her, "the only way to do this and not risk the law is with surgery. Its not medical best practice but itll keep us all out of jail".

I'd well believe it, but I wouldn't imagine those circumstances are all that common.

Today there is a story of same in the newspapers except the poor woman died as a result of the surgery.

Ahh, but not as a result of the 8th amendment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that's not what you were trying to imply - that her death was a result of the 8th amendment. No, her death was unfortunately due to -

The court was told what had happened was a "cascade of negligence" in which one individual act of negligence was followed by another.

I thought this bit was particularly depressing -

The court was told that when a decision was taken to try to cool her brain, two doctors had to be sent to a local pub to fetch ice.

Source: Man takes legal action over death of wife during surgery at National Maternity Hospital

.......

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah Jack keeps minimising the negative impacts on the 8th on womens lives and healthcare as if they are irrelevant to the debate and discussion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Even if surgery for eptopic pregnancy is successful, let's not forget it's removing a healthy tube and reducing a woman's ability to conceive in the future. I know one woman who had the same experience, tube removal because the hospital wouldn't offer an alternative. It's barbaric.