Hannibal_Smith wrote: » It's only a concern when it comes to abortion. When it comes to miscarriage no one gives a hoot what gets flushed down where. If human life is a human life etc. Anyhow, what about the human life that doesn't want to carry the 'humanlife' you are talking about? What is to happen then?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Probably not, but the salient question from his POV is, are they going to shift their vote away from FF in any numbers. If not, there's no real downside to this move for him.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » And who is going to challenge him? Do you see any TD's moving to take him out tonight? :rolleyes: No you don't, because deep down they all know Irish society has changed dramatically and they are out of kilter with what people think.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And I am pointing out that the gender of a human being decided at the moment of conception is the plan, not the implementation of it. Quite important!
What a straw man that is. I value human life every bit as much as you do, so you can pocket the distortions and ad hominem thanks. The difference is where we define "human life" as starting, and what it means. You are appealing to "Human life" in a way that is purely taxonomy. Which is not useful.
I however am appealing to the attributes that make humans "human". Their actual HUMANITY. Attributes that distinguish humanity from any other piece of life on this planet.
Except it is not irrelevant at all. Irrelevance does not appear in things that do not suit YOUR argument and agenda. You are trying to make a "someone" out of a "no one" by pointing to the fact that their sex is determined in DNA. And I am just pointing out to you that that is also true of EVERY gendered species on our entire planet. Which dilutes your approach to the nonsense it was to begin with.
Come back with the goal posts there, I said "no one" not "nothing". Stop changing MY words into words more convenient to you. The Zygote is not a "nothing" it is a "no one". And while "nothings have no attributes" a "no one" can. Learn the difference.
No, it does not. No more than having an arm implies an identity. Or a hair color. Or eye color. Or a genetic disease. Identity is a subjective narrative. There is no narrative in biological sex. You are basically engaging in pathetic fallacy to manufacture identity out of nothing but narrative.
As I said, that which gives human life value... There is nothing inherently special about human life as you say, except the sentience and consciousness that gives us the very concepts of value, ethics, morality and all the other things we value like culture, art, literature, poetry, love, and hope.
Again only in terms of pure taxonomy. Which is a poor basis for the levels of philosophy you are failing to aspire to.
Edward M wrote: » Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though. Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.
captbarnacles wrote: » I doubt anyone whoever describes pregnancy as an inconvenience has ever spoken to a pregnant woman.
Bannasidhe wrote: » And what?
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » As we have seen on this thread they are reduced to saying "no we weren't" and "no it's not",
thee glitz wrote: » Who's plan is it that gender is determined from the moment of conception? It is this which is a nonsense.
thee glitz wrote: » You've your own idea about that, and false analogies to back it up.
thee glitz wrote: » You are appealing to the aspects of human life which YOU value.
thee glitz wrote: » You were talking about a cow there btw. That the basis of my argument is similarly observed in other species doesn't dilute it at all. Apologies, I haven't been down the rabbit hole of nothings and no-ones before. It does appear that they warrant the same concern. I don't believe in no-ones, will have to work on that. It's a bit strange to think of a living object as being humanly male or female.
thee glitz wrote: » It was part of a question when I said there was nothing inherently special about human life. You've shown that I was entirely correct to say that you don't see intrinsic value in it. You say that you value the attributes that arise from it, but don't care to protect the means by which they naturally develop.
thee glitz wrote: » Making determinations on the values of individuals' lives is a dangerous road to go down. I've no inclination to partake in your clutch for straws.
thee glitz wrote: » What I was trying to gauge was the relative importance afforded to ensuring that women don't die (or suffer unduly) vs promotion of abortion on demand.
rainbow kirby wrote: » I'm almost 37 weeks right now. Anyone who says that within earshot of me can expect a slap. :pac:
Bannasidhe wrote: » Ah - the just suck it up and get on with it argument. Funny how it's not used to suggest that viagra should not be available on the State's bill. We have children and the elderly languishing in misery on hospital trolleys due to lack of funds (among other things in our disastrous so-called health service) while paying €4 million a month to help men get erections. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/irish-taxpayers-foot-4m-medical-card-bill-for-monthly-viagra-30885209.html Many men can't get it up - why can't they just get on with not getting it on?
Edward M wrote: » That's a great argument, I'm with you on that. Ask their partners how they feel about it also.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Sure that's why the good lord invented vibrators.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You really do struggle with the concept of analogy don't you? I am not saying there is a plan in the gender being determined, or that someone has such a plan. I was likening how gender is being set from the outset TO the "plan" in my blue print analogy.
I am pointing out that the gender of a human being decided at the moment of conception is the plan
That you do not understand the analogy, or over extend it past it's purpose, is not a fault in the analogy. The fact remains it IS deceptive and dishonest to pretend one of us has more concern than the other about the value of "Human Life". I suggest we do not, we just differ in what we each believe constitutes what is to BE valued in "Human Life". And I suggest that the source of that value comes from more than mere DNA.
Not so. I am appealing to aspects of human life from which the very concept of "value" is even derived. Nothing to do with me at all, but nice try all the same.
If consciousness and sentience were removed from this universe tomorrow, what do you think would be of value anymore, and what do you think would be DOING the valuing?
I think the very thing that brings the concept of "value" into the universe is for that reason itself inevitably of value. Without consciousness and sentience in the universe there would be nothing to value, nothing to do the valuing. It is, purely by definition, the foundation of anything worth valuing or to do valuing with. And it is the ONLY attribute that differentiates us in any meaningful way from any other animal on this planet. So yes I do find value in humanity for that reason. Not for the reason that their DNA happens to be what we define as "Human". So it is NOT right to say I "don't see intrinsic value in it". I see MUCH intrinsic value in one definition of "Humanity". I just see no intrinsic value in Humanity as a biological concept alone. A Huge difference.
The only clutching at straws going on is coming from you and your nonsense claim that Genetic Gender is suggestive of "an identity". If you want to make excuses to leave, that is fine by me. But inventing excuses that attempt to make it look like this is MY failure, rather than your own, ain't gonna fly. I am not making determination on the value of individual lives either, so you also made that up. I AM making claims about what it is that we should value in humanity as a whole, and that there is nothing about a fetus in the 0-16 weeks window that anyone (least of all you) has shown to be worthy of value at all. The dismissal by little more than assertion of my arguments is a mere cover for the fact you have offered no counter arguments related to value of your own at all.
Bannasidhe wrote: » 'Relative' importance? Sweetest divine :rolleyes:. Surely it is of utmost importance that women don't die or suffer unduly. Can you seriously not see that even using terms like 'relative' places women in a less than equal position when it comes to how their welfare is considered?
thee glitz wrote: » I don't. You said If something is set, it is not a plan. A plan can change, can go unused, but something set refers to an actual outcome, something which exists independently of the "plan".
thee glitz wrote: » I don't mean to say that you don't, under any circumstances, value human life, but seem to not value the capacity to develop consciousness and the inevitability of sentience, which you cling to. It must be determined that there is human life which has no value, at a stage every one of us were once at. This is straight-up I am but I'm not waffle. What a very sad hypothetical situation. The capacity to regain consciousness and sentience would be valued, and maybe you'd be there not valuing it?
thee glitz wrote: » I'm pretty sure animals value things too. Again, you go to lengths to show your humanity, to come back to the same point. You've timed it well! I indeed can't to go back and forth over this indefinitely, especially with your lengthy, wandering posts (which I suspect are copy/paste enabled, but somewhat appreciate). Certainly, I will have time to again. Perhaps you'll consider why your (or anyone's) opinion on the value a human life is important anyway.
thee glitz wrote: » Pro abortion rights campaigners seemingly refuse to contemplate (even the possibility of) a situation where women's lives could be saved, unless it also allows abortion whyever.
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » This literally made me LOL. Of course there are situations where a pregnant woman's life can be saved without abortion!
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
robbiezero wrote: » Apologies if this is a stupid question, but will a 12 week limit on abortion as proposed by the Oireachtas committee restrict "full bodily autonomy"?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » put in only for filler and no utility
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » To a point yes! The phrase I like to use in answer to that point is "I have the full right to swing my arms around wildly, but that right ends where your face begins". I think the position of pro-choice people who believe in a term limit (usually of the form of 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks) is that a woman has full bodily autonomy over her own PERSON up until the point where they feel ANOTHER person comes into the equation. So just like I have fully bodily autonomy to swing my fists around, up to where your face is, a woman should have fully bodily autonomy up to the point another PERSON can be said to be effected by her choices. And the moment another sentient PERSON with rights comes into the equation..... an individuals choices have to be progressively and meaningfully curtailed and mediated. But there is nothing going on in the fetus at 12, 16, even 20 weeks that can meaningfully ground a conversation about the existence of another person with rights.
No one is wrapping anything but even you must admit - the 8th is a failure. Beside the side effects of affecting womens maternity care and the extreme failures such as Savita, or the poor woman who was kept as a zombie on life support because there was a fetal heartbeat - but, it doesnt even stop abortions - they happen anyway, either in Ireland illegally, or women travel for them - both of which cases risk womens health and life. So it does nothing positive - at all!
