freshpopcorn wrote: » It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!
_Roz_ wrote: » Not gonna lie, I know what they look like and it does make me sad. But what matters to me is more that the reflexes are just that - reflexes, and no real pain is felt by the foetus during the abortion. That doesn't make it right, but it's important to know that if someone is going to do it, that the foetus will know nothing about it at 12 weeks and earlier.
Jim Ellis wrote: » We are all just "clumps of cells".. Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks: Tell me that's not a human life? Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus. I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for. Instead the campaign is masked with love heart graphics as if it's something noble or brave to abort a baby.
Army_of_One wrote: » This is pretty much why a yes vote should be passed. People are attaching too much emotion to what is really only a clump of cells.
The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements. In fact, if you prod your abdomen, your baby will squirm in response, although you won't be able to feel it. His intestines, which have grown so fast that they protrude into the umbilical cord, will start to move into his abdominal cavity about now, and his kidneys will begin excreting urine into his bladder. Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human: His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of his head, and his ears are right where they should be.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Here is a fun thought experiment that has left two posters running away from me never to return. Imagine I realize the holy grail of Computing, and I tomorrow construct a General Artificial Intelligence that will be every bit as conscious and sentient as you or I (maybe even more so) once I turn it on. If it helps your intuitions at all (it did for one of the two posters I mention) you can even imagine I have switched the on switch and it will become sentient in 120 seconds unless I flick the off switch. What moral or ethical argument exists to suggest that potential puts any onus on me at all?
_Roz_ wrote: » The difference here is you're not going to inherently develop into a rapist if left alone. The foetus will, medical complications or misscarriage not withstanding, definitely develop into a person.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But all you are saying with the words "potential person" is "it is not a person". And that is all that is important for me. We do not give rights to processes or potentials. Nor do we remove them. I am a male so I guess in some ways I am a POTENTIAL rapist. But no one locks me up.
Water John wrote: » It's quite clear IMO, that if we get to changing the law, the upper limit will be 12 weeks with a considerable possibility that it will be more restricted than that.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The fetus is a 12-16 week old mass of barely differentiated cells, has absolutely no sentience or consciousness of any kind.... and in fact not even many of the pre-requisites of it. It is not a person. It has no concerns, desires or choices or free will. I see no good reason to afford such an entity moral and ethical concern or rights at all. LET ALONE in relation to (or even to the detriment of) that of the woman in question.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Correct me if I am wrong but if they can be quoted on something they have said, as a matter of record, then you can not be accused of slander? It is not slanderous to quote what someone ACTUALLY and DEMONSTRABLY said? Or have I completely misunderstood the definition of the term "slander"? Someone on another (I think) thread put it well today I think. The fact that we legislate for the age of sexual consent means POTENTIALLY the government could reduce the age of consent to 12 or 6. But the fact they potentially COULD do this does not in any way mean they are likely to. The narrative of "no limits abortion" is generally coming from people who want that potential to scare people, but the people it is coming from appear in NO WAY inclined to show it is in any way likely or credible. But I suspect that, with a few people like yourself, the spark of fear is enough to light a fire. And we should not let that fire spread by in turn perpetuating this unsubstantiated concern to others.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.
_Roz_ wrote: » It's not about rights for me, its that you're consciously choosing to end a potential person and I'll never fully accept that it's fair for anyone to make that choice just because of the stage of development the foetus is at.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » But your opinion must be based on SOMETHING. Otherwise it is just scaremongering.
freshpopcorn wrote: » You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out. I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc. If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit. This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable. I don't understand why you can't understand this?
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Is that evidence there are TDs who want no term limit abortion?
freshpopcorn wrote: » To me a repeal is important but I think the most important to people to target now are those on the fence voters is the most important. It's easy enough to figure out TD's who are against abortion and who have being campaigning in the dail for it with years and those who are middle of the road.(changed there mind over time). Just note not all TD who have being campaigning for abortion for years are strong as others. When the debates start's for example I don't think those who are a lot more liberal about the matter comes across well to people who are unsure of the matter or people who might vote for abortion up to twelve weeks but if they hear future governments can legislate on the matter easily and change it easily and that TD admits I'd always support the woman's choice. I think these people won't do the campaign any favors.
kylith wrote: » What a selfish bitch! How very dare a teenaged girl think about her studies and how they could better her position in life!? She should absolutely be forced to give up on college and any dreams she had for a career and a good life. :rolleyes: Even if it could be called selfishness, would you want someone so selfish to have sole charge of a child?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But we do not assign rights to "processes" do we? That is the crux of the issue for me. Identify what EXACTLY rights are for, and what we ACTUALLY assign them to.... and you very quickly realize that the answers list a set of attributes the fetus not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks at 12/16 weeks gestation.
RobertKK wrote: » There are many women against abortion. A survey by Newstalk with a polling company found more men were prochoice than women. Your post is tacking the person and not the topic at hand which shows you have a weak argument if you can’t argue the topic.
RobertKK wrote: » Being a woman in 2018 means if you are man you are a pervert...
_Roz_ wrote: » I really don't like the 'my body, my choice' arguments'. It is your body, but I don't 100% feel that gives you full rights over what happens to a life growing in you, due to my above statement about interrupting an ongoing process.
RobertKK wrote: » I don’t care what side they are in. I value democracy and I always vote and do so legally.
RobertKK wrote: » The authors are ethicists from Oxford University.
RobertKK wrote: » I don't mind posting challenging views which challenges people even if my own.
RobertKK wrote: » Too many people want to dismiss opinions they disagree with rather than consider them.
RobertKK wrote: » I was asked for an argument that compared the unborn lives in the wombs to the born lives of infants and newborn and the moral equivalence of ending their lives.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh look. It's the having an abortion can cause women to become child abusers nonsense all wrapped up in psychobabble. As previously brought to you by your local friendly unregulated pro-life 'family planning' clinic
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not sure why you would post something that contradicts the rest of your posts.
