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.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Ok, please quote where exactly the constitution clarifies between the pre-sentient and sentient and the bit about the right to protection in order to become sentient?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except all the reasons people have listed throughout the thread. Especially the fact that a sentient agent, for whole we should have moral and ethical concern, should not have their rights curtailed by a blob of non sentient matter inside their own body.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Aside from abortion what "better ways" exist to allow a woman who does not want to be pregnant, to not be pregnant? I can not wait to hear these better ways, especially as they are "far better" according to you. List them please. It seems "far better" means far better for YOU not for them. And I doubt they, or I, should be judging what is better for THEM, based on what is nice for YOU.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Everything, that is, except for allowing them the option they actually seek. Which is to take a non-sentient piece of biology out of their own bodies as should be their right. All on the notion that such a blob should have a right to life for no other reason that the Feelz of it. Just because some single women can make it on their own in such situations, through ingenuity or resourcefulness does not mean A) They all do That their own hopes and dreams and life plans have been curtailed or destroyed or C) that they should be expected to just because someone else did/could.
bubblypop wrote: » They are second class citizens when it comes to their own healthcare & their own choices about their own body. I never for a second said or insinuated that single mothers were second class citizens. Rather ALL women are second class citizens, when a 6 week old embryo has an affect on their healthcare.
....... wrote: » But the above assumes that such a young women might want a child if things were different. What about women like me who never want to have children, ever, at all? Or what about women who have already got children and do not want more, not out of a financial constraint, but because their family is big enough and they feel they have completed it. What about women who have a high chance of passing on a genetic abnormality (this affects a member of my own extended family), who does not want to bear another child because of it - they already had one "accident" and although their child is unaffected, he is now a carrier and will have some tough decisions himself to make later on about whether or not it is ethical to have children. Basically Jack - your utopia seems to only consider one type of woman, but the variety of reasons why women choose abortions is far beyond that. I know you have incorrectly interpreted "socio-economic reasons" as financial only, but reality is much more varied. I know women who had abortions because of timing/finance/stage in life, but I also know women who had them because they already had children and didnt want more. I am someone who never wants children and I have described the situation of an extended family member above - there are many more and varied reasons that can easily be lumped under "socio-economic".
One eyed Jack wrote: » Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could. Because I understand though that these situations don't simply arise out of nothing, I would have already attempted to work towards a society where she would never find herself in that position in the first place. Idealistic? Absolutely. Impossible? Certainly not. Ohh far, far, faaaaar from it bubblypop, and this is exactly what I mean when other posters here have implied that I don't care about women. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, and that's why I don't like this argument either that assumes that because a young girl may currently be in a position where she feels she is unable to care for a child, and the further assumption that both she and her child would be a burden on the State - in my experience at least, that simply isn't true, and when young women are given the opportunity, not only are they incredibly resourceful, but they are more than capable not only of creating opportunities for themselves, but they are more than capable of raising children who themselves in turn also contribute greatly to society, and are not seen as the 'second class citizens', or the burden on the State that some people see them as or make them out to be to bolster their arguments as to why those women shouldn't have children.
end of the road wrote: » not a valid reason for abortion on demand. essentially saying "it's aweful we have children in care so lets kill them before they are born instead" of course it's aweful that we have children in care, but simply killing them off before they are born isn't the answer to that problem. looking at the reasons they are in care and dealing with those is the better option. again abortion on demand isn't the solution to that, given that with people coming to ireland, we may end up with more birthrates anyway.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
eviltwin wrote: » And what if your granddaughter just doesn't want to be pregnant? What then?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
