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: » 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.
_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: » 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?
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.
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.
_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.
freshpopcorn wrote: » It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!
freshpopcorn wrote: » 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.
Jim Ellis wrote: » 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.
Jim Ellis wrote: » Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus.
Jim Ellis wrote: » That's not a logical argument. If I killed you in your sleep using a painless method, is that morally right? Just because someone can't feel pain and/or is not conscious does not justify killing them.
Billy86 wrote: » I asked already, maybe you specified it to another poster and I missed it... which TDs are you talking about? Like which actual specific ones. If you're saying it's based on "how they've spoken on the matter over the years" you won't have any problem pointing out the exact ones you are referencing. Please don't try to hide behind being worried about slander, by the way.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It is nice to notice you are not ignoring and dodging ALL my posts. Just the ones that were talking to you directly. But well done on entirely missing the point of the one post you did deign to respond to..... ..... given I indicated there was no reason to think anyone on the buses was voting illegally and every reason from listening to them to think they were above board. However the side point was just that the illegal votes go both ways, so anyone moaning it influenced the final result has the onus to show a disparity between the two significant enough to have made any difference. I not only doubt you can do that, I very much doubt you even know how to begin with the statistics involved. In other words I was not condoning the act at all. I was just claiming that moaning about it having influenced the vote, as some people are wont to do at times, would be a nonsensical approach. Who said nothing about the "understanding" you were ACTUALLY asked about :rolleyes::rolleyes: In fact everything you cited in BOTH sections explains why they DONT have it. You are shooting your own arguments in the foot with your own quotes now :cool: Is that because you simply ignore the majority of them without addressing or engaging at all? By, for example, wholesale ignoring them I guess? Not what you were asked at all. Why change history when people can scroll back in 30 seconds and SEE what is true? I have never understood lying myself, but I REALLY never understood lying about something you are pretty much literally standing beside the truth of. Here again is what you were asked and I will bold the part you are now using historical revisionism to ignore: What argument successfully compares a 12 week old fetus with a born child in terms of the child having "understanding"?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So it's just your opinion that some TD's may be in favour? Why not post interviews/links to radio broadcasts or newspaper articles where they have expressed this (in your opinion)so we can see where you are coming from and decide for ourselves?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Well, no. I am in favour of no term limits, Canada style. It is a matter for the woman and her doctors, not the law. And you can stick your "concern" for the campaign, because I don't believe for a moment that you want Yes to win.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Well you a perfectly entitled to your beliefs and I am to mine.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » it is better to do nothing now than to pass some half-way house Rape, Incest and FFA only amendment, because if we pass nothing now, we'll get UK or Canadian rules within a decade. Pass some halfway amendment, and we'll be refighting this in 5, 10, 15 years to no purpose.
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: » Scaremongering codswallop
freshpopcorn wrote: » I can't find them they were clips from prime time/rte news over the years. Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass. Any sniff that Ireland might end up like this and I think the repeal will struggle.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Is Canada a hellhole of genocide and baby-murder? No. Go look up the numbers - late term abortion has not jumped upwards as psycho moms are let loose to murder their children, because late term abortions are always, ALWAYS a family tragedy. Which the law should keep its blunt nose out of.
