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
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.....
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » No. You did not. You still have not replied to it at all. I can identify a number of posts where this is simply a lie too. If you want me to do this, just ask. Happy to do it for you. I can list all the posts that prove the lie you have just told here that you replied to them all. Call me on it. I dare you.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Nothing except the things I listed that you did. You dodge the question about the GAI for one. You simply did not answer it then, just like you are not answering it now.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » What has "living" got to do with it. Nothing in science or philosophy suggests that GAI is not possible or that it can only run on a system that is "living". The idea that something needs to be "living" to be sentient is a fantasy you have just made up, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence for it. And the reason you are making it up is clear, to dodge the question again. Because you know as well as I do that the concept something capable of sentience has a right to become sentient is similarly made up. Nothing has the rights to become sentient, nor should it based on any argument you have ever offered.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You really are trotting out the assertions today, none of them backed up by anything. There is nothing to say a better system and abortion by choice are not compatible. You are, once again, making it up. It is perfectly possible to allow for abortion, while also supporting and improving every possible initiative that reduces the requirement to ever seek one. Improving the quality and range of contraception is one. Improving sex education in the schools and offering it EARLIER is another. I personally think contraception should be a VAT free item. The social structures around parenthood could be improved too. Compare Germany to Ireland for examples of systematic changes that could be distilled out to massively improve things. The list goes on of things we could do to improve the system and, outside your active fantasy world, NONE of them would be in any way hampered or curtailed by having an all access abortion service in our country.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I just addressed that, but thanks for ignoring my points again. I recognize there is a difference between the fact of abortion being implemented, and the quality of HOW it is implemented. You believe it can not be introduced in a good way. But aside from assertion of that fantasy, you have not offered a SHRED of backup for it. Anywhere. At all. Ever.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Nothing except all the things I pointed out that you did. I am not sure anyone is buying this Trumpesque fake news approach of simply describing reality as the opposite of what it is. Things you made up are there in black and white, but you claim not to have done it. Multiple posts are there that you demonstrably did not reply to, yet you claim to have replied to them all. There is a litany of simple distortions of reality in your posts where you claim the EXACT opposite of what black and white evidence shows to be true. And this is not healthy.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Ehhhh, do keep up. We are on a thread discussing CHANGING That constitution remember. Last time I checked I was discussing what the constitution and society in my view should be saying and doing. Telling me what you think it CURRENTLY is saying and doing is somewhat talking past me therefore.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Please quote exactly where in the constitution it says specifically that the pre-sentient have the right to be protected in order to become sentient. I want to see the exact writing. Because as I said previously, the bolded is your intepretation, not the actual reality/law/fact. If you cannot quote a piece of law stating that specifically, we'll have to agree that you just made it up, and its actually just your interpretation/opinion.
end of the road wrote: » for you to agree that i made it up, i would have had to have made it up, or claimed it. the fact is the right to become sentient is a defacto right rather then a specific right, given that the unborn have a right to be protected as per the constitution.
end of the road wrote: » i have offered plenty of it throughout the thread when the specific issue has arisen. i have never engaged in any of what you claim. i have done nothing but debate in good faith.
end of the road wrote: » i have never told a lie on this site in my years here. so i will thank you not to accuse me of doing so. i replied to your posts.
end of the road wrote: » i didn't dodge it, it's simply not relevant.
end of the road wrote: » the political culture of ireland means that legislating for abortion and improving the systems are not compatible as the government grudgingly spend money on systems as it is.
end of the road wrote: » with abortion on demand they can just sweep the issues under the carpet as their stanc will be
One eyed Jack wrote: » I can understand why you would assume that from your perspective, but if you were actually really to look at things from my perspective, you wouldn't have come to that conclusion. I would wish for a society that would value them both equally, and as eviltwin points out - that's a utopian ideal, but that shouldn't mean I should just give up on working towards that goal. To that end, obviously you and I are going to have different values that we instill in our children and would hope to be around long enough to instill in our grandchildren. Hell for reasons that aren't particularly relevant here, at one point I didn't even imagine I would be alive to see my own child grow up, let alone entertain the possibility that one day I might meet my grandchildren. I would wish for a society in which a system of healthcare existed which at it's core was the principle of determining not just what my granddaughter would require, but what I believe is required to benefit society as a whole, not just the individual, whether they are pregnant or not. So I wonder about things for example like what if my granddaughter were disabled in some way, would she be given the opportunities that would allow her to fully participate in and contribute to society, or would she be institutionalised because the argument being that she never should have been born in the first place? Would she be prohibited from reproducing if she were known to be a carrier of the gene for Cystic Fibrosis for example? I agree with people when they say the 8th amendment has far more reaching consequences for women, but I don't believe that applies just to women, I believe it applies to society as a whole, and I have so, so many moral and ethical questions and conflicts that I have to try and find answers for. You can't answer these questions for me, nobody can answer these questions for anyone else but themselves, and then it is up to each of us to act according to the best answers our conscience can provide, because nobody else but us as individuals will have to live with the consequences of our decisions, and only at some point in the future can we answer the question as to whether we were right or wrong to make the decisions we did, and whether or not we can continue to live with the consequences. I won't be backed into a corner, or made to feel guilty for that, or shamed or guilt tripped for what decisions I make, either by you or anyone else, either on this thread or offline, I can tell you now that because I'm not an immature teenager, your efforts simply won't work. You and others can continue to pick holes and nit-pick at what I've said all you want, but none of that will change the fact that at least I know what I meant, and I will continue to work towards that goal, regardless of the outcome of any referendum on the 8th amendment.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I agree with people when they say the 8th amendment has far more reaching consequences for women, but I don't believe that applies just to women, I believe it applies to society as a whole
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I asked you to back up the assertion, not repeat it at me. You do know the difference right, between backing up a claim and merely repeating the same claim again? I do hope so. However if there is a problem (real or imagined) with the political climate, then work to improve the political climate. Simples. But the economics at play here are likely much more complicated than you might want to pretend. For example what are the relative costs between giving 10,000 women the abortion they seek, or helping at a state level to support those 10,000 women in the financial burdens of raising the unwanted child? Something tells me one is FAR cheaper than the other, and would free up resources to improve the political climate you are imagining. And that is lazy and intellectually bankrupt thinking by you. Doing the right thing should be done even if it leads to people doing OTHER things bad. If doing X means the government will attempt to sweep Y and Z under the carpet, then it is up to us the electorate to not LET them sweep Y and Z under the carpet. Simple as that. But on top of that the simple fact is that allowing many women the abortion they desire will target and eliminate some of the problems you think are being swept under the carpet. That does not mean those problems go away, and can be ignored. But it is a step to addressing many of them in a powerful and useful way.
eviltwin wrote: » And what if your granddaughter just doesn't want to be pregnant? What then?
end of the road wrote: » abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems
end of the road wrote: » abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems, it is likely to cause them. abortion on demand is a solution looking for problems. she will either have to go to a state which does offer abortion on demand, or if not then wait until the child is born and put it up for adoption. at the end of the day, we all want things in life that sometimes we just can't have. either because we can't afford it, or because giving it to us would effect society. i understand that stance sounds a bit unfair, but unfortunately the issue of abortion on demand in general is by it's nature unfair.
end of the road wrote: » abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems, it is likely to cause them. abortion on demand is a solution looking for problems.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except yes it is. It is not THE solution to those problems. It is A solution to them. It should not and can not be the exclusive one. But it is an option in what should be a suite of options for people experiencing an unwanted/crisis pregnancy. There is no reason on offer on this thread for why it should not be a solution or option other than your fantastical invention of the "Right to become sentient" which you are engaging in any number of linguistic acrobatics to dodge supporting or substantiating in even the smallest way.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
eviltwin wrote: » We all know what you think and we all know the disgusting comments you make when you lose the argument.
pilly wrote: » It's hilarious that EOTR can answer the questions put to other posters.
Martina1991 wrote: » Possible reduced birth rates- Not a bad thing in an overpopulated world.
Martina1991 wrote: » Possible educed number of families and single mothers claiming benefits from the state.
Martina1991 wrote: » Possible reduced number of children put into care.
Martina1991 wrote: » Possible reduced strain on maternity and health care services.
end of the road wrote: » there is no reason for an abortion on demand to be a right or to be offered as a solution to problems within this state
end of the road wrote: » when there are far better ways to solve that problem
bubblypop wrote: » The only way I can see that it applies to society as a whole is that it allows women to be treated as second class citizens in our society.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
