The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

freshpopcorn · 31-01-2018 09:31PM

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.

Yes, it's clear to me also but not everybody understands this!

_Roz_ · 31-01-2018 09:36PM

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.

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.

But yes despite my concerns I'll be voting yes. It's more a philosophical/moral qualm I have than a legal or practical one.

Water John · 31-01-2018 09:37PM

Harris may have to negotiate with various members of Parliament, to find a wording that will carry a majority. A first for this country and a great leap forward in our democracy. TDs and Senators having to think and stand for what they believe in.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 09:43PM

_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.

A potential does not become more of a potential or less of a potential in terms of the certainty behind it. It is still a potential. But for me the crux of it comes down to the fact that if you say "X is potentially Y" then you are also outright saying "X is not Y".

This is a simple logical point/step that I can not NOT make. My moral and ethical concern is for PEOPLE. So when someone tells me "X is potentially a person" then the fact X is therefore NOT a person leaves me no basis upon which to form such a concern.

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? Why would it not be ok for me to.... say..... cancel the booting routine (the inevitable sentience that was about to occur), pull it apart, and use the parts to construct toasters for my mates instead.

I think the answer is "None". The potential for intelligence and sentience and for want of a better word "Personhood" to arise places NO moral obligation on me to allow it to realize it. At all. So why would a machine made of meat, rather than silicon, do so? What magic does carbon bestow on the morality of the system that silicon does not?

However from the moment the machine hits sentience and thinks "Who am I" I would see hammering into toaster pieces to be every bit as abhorrent as me stabbing you to death would be.

_Roz_ · 31-01-2018 09:54PM

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?

I feel the same about that as I do about foetuses. It's not about onus or moral obligation either, if I thought it was I would be pro-life. I'm still in favour of the choice to abort, but I don't base that on the potential life having no right to become a life. Similarly I think it's far worse to prevent a sentient machine coming to fruition for the sake of toasters, than to use a machine that wouldn't become sentient to make toasters!

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 10:02PM

So in essence we are talking about little more than a feeling you have. So nothing we can really dig into with any further conversation as there is no rational or philosophical basis behind it we can further discuss? You just FEEL that something that potentially could become sentient should ideally do so?

I guess I just lack that feeling as I can not feel things without SOME substantiation or rationale behind it. All my feelings need SOME grounding in the reality around me, or I just do not feel them. And I guess that is just a tiny difference between us that precludes any further exploration of the issue.

For me AT MOST it would be a shame not to turn such an AI on. I would genuinely like to meet it and interact with it and have it cherish life and the universe as much as I do. But I see absolutely no moral obligation, let alone any backed up by rational/philosophical arguments, to think I have any onus to do so, or allow it to do so. So while I feel you suffer needlessly from your intuitions, I have no method to divest you of them

Though the attempt was at least noble.

_Roz_ · 31-01-2018 10:15PM

I guess so, yeah. I don't think anything will change my view on it. I just disagree with the idea that because it's not yet a baby, it's more 'okay' to abort it on a moral level. Practically, it's far more okay, as the foetus won't know, obviously. Different levels of things. And I also get annoyed by the almost feminist focus of people my age (30 and younger) who are more interested in getting autonomy for their bodies than access to medical care for a god awful situation they will hopefully never be faced with, because while I think the woman takes precedence, I don't think the validity of the foetus is zero, if that makes sense. To me the only difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and one at say 8 months, is the distress and pain for the potential life, and for the mother. But I don't think one is morally worse than the other, just more traumatic.

Still though, these discussions and this thread in general have helped me to hone and articulate my feelings on the matter, so that's very helpful to me

Jim Ellis · 31-01-2018 10:27PM

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.

We are all just "clumps of cells"..

Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks:

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.

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_ · 31-01-2018 10:32PM

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.

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 · 31-01-2018 10:35PM

_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.

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 · 31-01-2018 10:36PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!

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.

Zubeneschamali · 31-01-2018 10:38PM

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.

During the SSM campaign, we heard from a lot of people who were totally in favour and had nothing at all against the gays, but just wished they would tone it down, not be in everyone's face, just be cool and act like normal people for a little while until it got passed.

In other words, step into the closet for a while so that the straight people can handle things.

But it is a transparent ploy - concern trolling it's called. And here you are doing it in this campaign. Yes campaigners should pull their punches. Don't sound "too liberal". Settle for FFA, rape and incest. Don't risk losing by saying what you have been saying FOR 35 FúCKING YEARS SINCE THIS SH!T STARTED!

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.

Ave Sodalis · 31-01-2018 10:40PM

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.

That's not human life. That's potential and, as pointed out earlier, one that often naturally fails even after this point. All cells are multiplying at this point, they have been since day one. Science and medicine do not consider a foetus as life at this stage.

(PS I know what a foetus looks like at 12 weeks, and I'm willing to bet so does a lot of people here...)

circular flexing · 31-01-2018 10:42PM

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.

I won't go look them up because they are totally irrelevant to the debate.

Zubeneschamali · 31-01-2018 10:46PM

Jim Ellis wrote: »

Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus.

Have a look at a video of someone having their appendix removed. Live human tissue being cut out and thrown away like trash! Blood everywhere! Gross!

Or pretend we are adults here, and know a bit about the subject, please.

_Roz_ · 31-01-2018 10:47PM

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.

I differentiate between morally and practically, as I explained in my earlier discussion with another poster.

For me, the existing life takes precedence over the potential life at that moment in time. Ergo, right to abortion. And practically speaking, the sooner the better, so the foetus feels nothing. Morally, I disagree that just because it's a 'potential life' rather than an 'actual life' that interrupting the process with abortion is totally okay. I see it as preventing a life (rather than ending one, and that's why its morally for me not as bad as killing an existing person. Preventing completion of a person does not equal killing an existing person, but I do think it's more morally significant than many pro-choicers.)

freshpopcorn · 31-01-2018 10:56PM

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.

I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.

Timberrrrrrrr · 31-01-2018 11:01PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.

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?

RobertKK · 31-01-2018 11:01PM

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"?

Some people have lives and I don't have time to reply to everything.
I mean I got a loads of people quoting me, I am not going to reply to all and especially not long winded posted that are divided up like the above.
Just being honest about it, that I give replies but don't expect every quote to be replied to, I don't get paid for the time it would take, and I want to enjoy life among the serious stuff of life.
I did answer one of those questions you asked but you missed it.

freshpopcorn · 31-01-2018 11:04PM

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?

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.

freshpopcorn · 31-01-2018 11:09PM

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.

Well you a perfectly entitled to your beliefs and I am to mine.

Zubeneschamali · 31-01-2018 11:13PM

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.

If divorce had been held up for 10 more years, the stupid 4 year limit would never have been put in, and we would be better off today. I know it would suck to be caught in the middle, but everyone else would be better off today.

Likewise, 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.

Just make it a private matter for women and their doctors and move on.

Zubeneschamali · 31-01-2018 11:18PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well you a perfectly entitled to your beliefs and I am to mine.

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.

jonnny68 · 31-01-2018 11:24PM

Both as bad as each other, religious nutters and old culchies living in a parallel universe will vote to keep it as it is and accuse anyone who votes to repeal as a murderer, lefty freaks millennial snowflakes will castigate anyone who doesn't vote to repeal same as they did with the gay marriage referendum.

thee glitz · 31-01-2018 11:25PM

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.

So you don't particularly care about rape, incest and FFA cases? I don't doubt that you're not alone.

Would it not be more democratic to gauge demand for some halfway house, and then see if there's a want for more?

Annasopra · 31-01-2018 11:25PM

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?

Scaremongering codswallop

freshpopcorn · 31-01-2018 11:27PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Scaremongering codswallop

Yes but if this happens in debates I can see there being trouble!
Can you?

Timberrrrrrrr · 31-01-2018 11:28PM

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.

So no evidence at all to back up.your ridiculous cla8ms, well colour me surprised:rolleyes:

freshpopcorn · 31-01-2018 11:28PM

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.

Yes, I know that late term abortions don't happen that often I never said they did but it will be used by people in the Pro-life campaign in my opinion and it won't sit well with everybody.

david75 · 31-01-2018 11:29PM

The truly scary part is the PLC have employed people to act as keyboard warrriors in Merrion square and overseas to post on every forum and comment section possible on this topic, as they did on marriage equality campaign. simply to toxify the debate and cause confusion in any undecided voters mind. Literally bottom feeding.

They’ve also hired the pr team behind brexit.

All the pro choice campaign has to do is to point that out to the Irish public for a safe win.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments