bubblypop wrote: » I can only assume you would wish for a society that treats your granddaughter, your living breathing granddaughter, as more important than a 6 week old embryo.
A society that allows healthcare to be determined on what your granddaughter requires, not dependant on whether she is pregnant or not.
end of the road wrote: » no, i made nothing up. the reality is the irish constitution gives protection to the unborn "as much as is practical" therefore defacto it has a right to become sentient and to live, unless there are extreme circumstances which mean it should not.
end of the road wrote: » this has never happened, i have only left 1 post of yours a long while before replying to it, and that's because i forgot about it, i replied to it when you reminded me of it.
end of the road wrote: » i dodged nothing.
end of the road wrote: » your comparison isn't viable or valid given that a machine is not living and artificial intelegence is just that.
end of the road wrote: » the reality is that british and irish political culture does not allow for abortion on demand and a better system. they are just not compatible
end of the road wrote: » however with abortion on demand our system would get worse and britain's systems in many cases have got worse as it's assumed people will just have abortions.
end of the road wrote: » no, i made nothing up.
end of the road wrote: » the reality is the irish constitution gives protection to the unborn "as much as is practical" therefore defacto it has a right to become sentient and to live, unless there are extreme circumstances which mean it should not.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Thanks for proving my point about your MO again for me by the way. Ignoring the posts I write to you, waiting some hours or days, then taking pot shots at posts I write to someone else. It is a rather clockwork cycle at this point.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You dodged it a few times already by means of mere dismiss and retreat, but I repeat the thought experiment I offered to you earlier. If I build an GAI tomorrow, that is every bit (maybe even more so) as sentient and conscious as you....... and the only thing stopping it realizing that potential is the one switch........ then why would I have any moral obligation to flick that switch? If a machine with no sentience, but the full potential for it, does not have a "right to become sentience" then why does a biological machine have it? Aside from the fact one is a machine made of silicon and the other a machine made of meat........... where does your imagined moral obligation suddenly manifest from? You have not grounded it in ANYTHING so far. Ever.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » My point exactly, thanks. I just said that. The difference between the fact THAT abortion is introduced and HOW it is introduced is a massive one. Not just in abortion. The same issues come up in threads on, say, legalized prostitution. People against prostitution rush to point to jurisdictions where the introduction of it had bad effects. But what they fail to do is show that the introduction of prostitution caused the detrimental effect. It was HOW it was introduced that did it. So you would get little fight from me there! Should you lose all the votes and so forth to prevent abortion-by-choice reaching Ireland........... You would in fact find me standing beside you on the front lines fighting TOGETHER to ensure abortion is introduced in such a way as to avoid such things happen. Both in terms of introducing it correctly, and ensuring that it's introduction is not used to take AWAY from initiatives and procedures and resources that otherwise are a benefit to society. But it is baby and bath water stuff. That the poor introduction of a new resource or service can have bad effects is not, and never should be, an argument for not introducing that resource or service AT ALL. And you would do well not to lose sight of the common ground that lies under both you and yours, and me and mine, when it comes to abortion. But you are..... willfully I suspect........ rather vague about what "systems" got worse and why in your rhetoric here. Feel free to expand on it with actual specifics, rather than doomsayer hand waving.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Speak for yourself I guess. You certainly are not describing me or anyone I know with this assertion. Everyone I know, myself included, pursue the ideal of not just having abortion by choice.... but having any and all initiatives possible to reduce (to zero preferably and ideally) the number of people who ever seek to have one! But I do not buy the narrative that the introduction of a new service kills the incentive to improve. We have over the years invented many medical treatments for poor health. Heart Bypass surgery jumps to mind. But there are still many people working on improving standards of health and fitness and living and well being so as to reduce the number of people who ever have to have one. Many do not sit back and say "Ah no need to improve the health of the nation, sure they can just have surgery if they need it".
WhiteRoses wrote: » Never in my days have I seen any law or legal writing that could interpret that the pre-sentient have the right to be protected in order to become sentient. Never. You literally just made that up. Of course, if you posted that in your opinion, the pre-sentient should be protected, that's a different matter. However you are stating it to be legal fact, when it isn't.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But at a societal level there is the question of what sort of a society would I want for my grandchildren,
end of the road wrote: » it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only. the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible. the reality in relation to abortion on demand, is that when it is legislated for (at least in terms of countries like britain) and ireland should we legislate for it, is that systems are not improved and in fact get a lot worse as there is no incentive to improve them. while ireland isn't great at implementing fully functional systems as it is, should abortion on demand be legislated for then the incentive to even attempt to improve will be gone. that is why, along with many other reasons, there is no grounds to legislate for abortion on demand. abortion on demand isn't needed, but abortion in extreme circumstances is . the state refusing to provide abortion on demand and fund it does not go against bodily autonomy. currently ireland isn't doing anything wrong by not legislating for abortion on demand, it is by not insuring all extreme circumstances where it would actually be necessary such as FFA aren't covered by what legislation exists.
end of the road wrote: » it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only.
end of the road wrote: » the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.
end of the road wrote: » systems are not improved and in fact get a lot worse as there is no incentive to improve them.
end of the road wrote: » the incentive to even attempt to improve will be gone.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » There we agree. How we legislate for an issue like abortion has greater implications at the level of society. It is a loft target to legislate for a brighter future, but one also have to temper ones ideals by the reality around us and legislate not just for our ideals, but for our reality too. But that is about as far as we agree as I think the CORRECT way to go is to recognize exactly what it is we value in humanity, and exactly what it is we are even in the business of doing when we discuss topics like rights, morality and ethics. And I believe we need to do this in a way that is not solely human-centric, but affects any life form we have or ever will come across, or will great. From the lowly chicken, to alien life, to general Artificial Intelligence. Curtailing the rights, well being, and choices of a sentient person (the woman) in deference to the imaginary concern for a non-sentient blob of meat (the fetus) does not do any of that. It does not recognize such rights and well being, it does not acknowledge what is actually of value in our flailing attempts at ethics and morality, and it is a distortion of not only where our concerns should lie in the present, but where they might be pressed to lie in the future in our ethical treatment of sentient software, alien life, or anything else that challenges human hubris on the value of it's own place in the universe. If ethics, rights and morality are "for" anything in this world, it is for the benefit and well being of sentient agents. To curtail that well being in deference to a sentient-dead biological blob is a failure in humanity and of ethics and morality as a whole. Have you any arguments, evidence, data and reasoning you can offer to elevate that statement above the level of correlation-causation assumptions? Because it seems at first glance to me that the general trend in our world, regardless of abortion laws, is to an ever increasing have-havenot divide between rich and poor. I certainly see no reason at this time to think or understand that full autonomy over ones own reproductive capability would REDUCE the chance of "social mobility". Especially given people with financial burdens who fall pregnant often end up dropping out of college and the like, to get jobs that make ends meet. Unwanted pregnancy can seriously hamper ones future and social mobility. So I am agog to hear how control over such unwanted pregnancy does too. But one other good reason I ask for something to elevate us past correlation-causation is to explore not only if there is a link between abortion and what you describe....... but if the link (if any) is not due to abortion being introduced but HOW it was introduced. There are good ways and bad ways to do these things. For example one could "give abortion to the people" and then simply sit back thinking "well they have reproductive autonomy now so no reason to bother with making contraception vat free, improving sexual education in schools, and all the other things that a society should be doing to reduce unwanted pregnancy". And with that kind of implementation I can begin to imagine how your narrative would come into play. Certainly what does not help such a situation is vacuous and unsubstantiated assertions that comprehensive sex education in the classroom will have no affects outside the classroom, despite the WEALTH of evidence that it actually does. Thankfully no one on this thread is making such assertions though right..... oh wait.....
One eyed Jack wrote: » I looked at abortion from a societal perspective, and the potential effects that the introduction of legislating or in our case broadening our abortion laws, as that's really how a society is influenced and guided - by a collection of laws that apply to everyone
One eyed Jack wrote: » In short - after abortion was legislated for in a society, the gap between those people who are living in poverty and those people who are wealthy, widened enormously
WhiteRoses wrote: » I'll be very honest Jack, I've read your posts on numerous threads over the last couple of months and I'm still actually unclear as to what exactly your position on this referendum is. I mean absolutely no offence when I say I find your posts confusing to read.
captbarnacles wrote: » You do infer it Jack, so much so I wondered if you were involved in maternity business - medical or other.
Originally Posted by pilly View Post You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf. Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments. No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis. Never made any such claim pilly, and if others inferred that from my posts, that's their business. Also, I would be surprised if you took the word of anyone on the internet seriously. I certainly don't, but your point reminds me of those metoo movementarians who imagine men have never known or heard of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped before now, and this is all new to them. Of course it is.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's been asked and answered numerous times in the thread already. You simply can't have missed it given your talent for snorting through my posts to find any juicy tidbits for your latest attempt to undermine my points, just like you're doing now.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason. I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life. You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.". Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn? You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights." Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth? Which is it? It can not be both! I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory. Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?
pilly wrote: » Ah but it was you said Jack you're just trying to paint yourself in a good light here. The 8th is harming women and your campaigning against repeal will continue that hurt should it work. To quote the words of my father again "I care more about women than embryos". Your view is you care more about embryos which puzzles me no end.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It becomes even more puzzling when you realize in other threads on other parts of the forum he talks about how the child only gets rights after birth, and how he believes a woman who does not want to be pregnant should be allowed terminate the pregnancy at any time, for any reason, and any stage of pregnancy. Something seriously does not add up for me there, but predictably when I asked for clarification (twice) he ignored it.
pilly wrote: » You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf. Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments. No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis.
Edward M wrote: » Was just listening to local radio here in the car as I travelled, the Joe Finnegan show on shannonside/northern sound radio. They did a survey of local political TDs, cross party. A fair few didn't respond or said they would wait for the debates this week to see how they could reconcile what was on offer before making up their minds fully. A good proportion did respond and from those that did respond a sizable majority are not in favour of repeal, and of those in favour of repeal have strong reservations on the 12 week abortion limit. Surprisingly a good few females are against repeal. This covers counties Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Longford and Westmeath.
One eyed Jack wrote: Where did I make any such claim first of all?
pilly wrote: » which puzzles me no end.
One eyed Jack wrote: That's not what I said at all, and what's quite breathtaking for me is that even after all this time, after all this discussion, you're still interpreting my posts with malicious intent or some desire that I have to deny women anything or harm women in some way.
Trudiha wrote: » You're right in that I'm not a mind reader but I can read the newspapers, here's a direct quote from the Indo, I'll follow up with a link, so you can read for yourself, there are no special powers required: "Mr Thawley he said had Googled ectopic pregnancy and had seen it could be treated with certain medicine but, counsel said, he was told that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat the only option was a surgical intervention."
You've either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I've said about The Offenses Against The Person Act and the Abortion Act of England and Wales. There is nothing in the Abortion Act that allows the therapeutic removal of an unviable embryo because there is nothing in the Offences Against Thr Persons Act that would require it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Erm, I wasn't citing anyone in particular there, I just meant the assumption that methotrexates is assumed to be the default treatment for an ectopic pregnancy shouldn't be assumed, and that there are many factors which should be considered in determining the best course of action whether it be surgical or medical intervention.
You're asking me to engage in a hypothetical again and I'm sorry, but I just can't. My mind doesn't work like that.
Kurtosis wrote: » Of course there may be cases where medical management is unsuitable, and similarly cases where surgical management is unsuitable. For cases where both types of management are possible, that is where the restrictions introduced by the eighth amendment are relevant. While it's difficult to attribute a single death to a treatment (i.e. saying that the counterfactual outcome would have been survival had a different treatment been used), it is possible to conclude a treatment is harmful. If one thousand ectopic pregnancy cases were randomly assigned to surgical management, and one thousand to medical management, any additional deaths occurring in the first group would be due to surgical management. Whatever that figure is, multiply that by the number of ectopic pregnancies where medical management would be suitable in Ireland per year, and you have an idea of how the eighth endangers womens' lives.
One eyed Jack wrote: » There's nothing in anything that's been written about the case to suggest that the doctors had any fear of any legal implications when they chose the course of action they did. At least I can point to where they gave the couple their medical opinion, and the couple agreed, so the doctors had their consent to any surgery, so I cannot see other than your own bias, how you could form the conclusion that the only reason methotrexate was not administered in those circumstances was as a result of the 8th amendment, or the doctors fear of any legal implications. I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think you are either.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
