Joeytheparrot wrote: » 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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?
drkpower wrote: » Seamus, you didn't address the point; about the president elect getting some rights despite not being the actual president. But carry on....
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I question that too....
seamus wrote: » You're splitting hairs. The president-elect is not the president. .
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
drkpower wrote: » Precisely; but it is given some rights; not full, but some. You should reflect on that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
seamus wrote: » Yes, it is given the rights of the president-elect, not of the president. By all means argue that "the foetus deserves the right to life because...", but the end of that sentence isn't "it's a potential person". The president-elect is given certain rights and privileges because they're necessary to ensure an efficient handover between administrations and ensure the safety of the president elect. Not because they're a "potential president". So on the same basis, what rights does a foetus need, and why?
eviltwin wrote: » 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.
....... wrote: » So you would prefer to affect the maternity care of ALL women in Ireland rather than allow medical best practice because you wish to deny some women the choice to have an abortion. That is quite breath taking.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » 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.
....... wrote: » Word salading wont change what you said. True colours indeed.
Fizzlesque wrote: » I had a brief read about anti natalist after reading Nozzferratthoo's post, and that doesn't represent my worldview.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No Joey, that's not true and that's certainly not the way I intend anything I've said to come across. I'm quite aware of the potential negative effects of the existence of the 8th amendment, but I don't see the potential negative effects of the existence of the 8th amendment as outweighing the potential negative effects of the repeal of the 8th amendment. I've given my reasons for coming to this conclusion earlier in the thread, and people who disagree with them have chosen to downplay them, and that's fair enough, leaves us at somewhat of an impass. I'm ok with that, not because I want to be, but because I have to be, because I accept and understand that not everyone sees everything the same way in Irish society.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » What? You are not minimising but yet you prefix it with "potential" - seriously? Thats hugely contradictory to me. There are negative effects of the 8th amendment. Calling them potetial negative effects is completely minimising them and downplaying. Stop trying to create an endless round the houses wordplay about how you are not doing something when you are clearly doing it.
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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
seamus wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
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.
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. Even the 8th amendment does not go so far as to say that the "unborn" is a human being.
end of the road wrote: » it actually doesn't as it is likely to develop into a person which will have all those characteristics. therefore it ranks a billion times higher then an amoeba.
drkpower wrote: » seamus wrote: » Yes, it is given the rights of the president-elect, not of the president. By all means argue that "the foetus deserves the right to life because...", but the end of that sentence isn't "it's a potential person". The president-elect is given certain rights and privileges because they're necessary to ensure an efficient handover between administrations and ensure the safety of the president elect. Not because they're a "potential president". So on the same basis, what rights does a foetus need, and why? The presidential analogy was probably tongue in cheek to begin with, but the point is that intermediates/potentials are actually given rights all the time, the extent of those rights depending but being somewhere between none and full rights. Completely outside of the 8th etc, we give certain rights to foetus' all the time. A foetus can't be harmed/neglected by a doctor for instance, and if it is, the doctor can be sued. That right vests after birth, but that is as much a matter of practicality rather than anything else. If the foetus truly 'had no rights', a doctor would be entitled to neglect and harm a foetus and walk away scott free. So, yes, the foetus is given many rights/privileges etc; i dont see why people seek to avoid that simple reality. It is entirely possible to hold a liberal pro-choice position while accepting that blindingly obvious reality.
