The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps but it depends how we deal with it. For example on this very thread a user was banned for making claims about the quantities of repeal camp wanting no limits abortion, but refusing to back up that claim in any way.

It was not even a PERMban. The user was told they COULD post on the thread again if only they would try to back up the claim. Said user, for obvious reasons, never returned. Because the claim simply could not be backed up. And they knew it as well as we did.

So if someone is making a SIMILAR claim, only specifically about TDs rather than the repeal camp as a whole..... then I think it fair and consistent that such claims be treated with the same level of "Conversational intolerance" (as Sam Harris would call it) and evidence be demanded of them in general. And excuses for not affording that evidence not tolerated or pandered to.

There is going to be a LOT of lies and misrepresentation and scaremongering (alas from both sides I am sure) in the coming months. And the onus is on ALL of us not to let it slide, and to call it out, at every turn until either the claimant A) Runs away (common) or admits "Yes you are right, I have absolutely no evidence AT ALL to offer to back up this narrative" (much less common) or C) actually presents the evidence for their claims (not as common as I would like).

I do not think we can have a sane debate on any issue, but less one this emotive, if we do not hold stringently and stridently to SOME level of shared truth and reality and substantiation. Even if that means calling out people who are on our "side" and will be voting how we want them to. I am a firm believer in cleaning up ones own house, before checking for dust on the sideboards in anyone else's.

This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html

They were TD's linked to these partied who I herd speak about the issue in clips on the news/primetime/etc and I felt it could do damage to the campaign if they did a lot of public speak on the issue!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I said, including with my thought experiment about an AI, I see no reason why a process places any moral onus on us to allow it, or help it to, complete. It is not mere processes we afford moral and ethical concern to.

A good starting point is to go back to basics on it. Ask yourself what rights, morals, ethics are even FOR. What do they DO? What is their function?

So far I have not met a single person who has given me any answer to that other than to say that rights and morals are for mediating the actions of sentient entities towards the well being and rights of other sentient entities.

Nothing about processes. The idea we have moral regard for processes is just not a "feeling" I can share without something more solid in terms of reasoning or philosophy to suggest I should. And as such I think that while I feel you are going to vote the correct way, you are going to suffer a little needlessly for doing so.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't see why the fact that the process has started puts any moral obligation on anyone to see the process through.

Again, I'm not saying there's a moral onus to seeing it through, if I thought there was, I would be pro-life. I'm literally just arguing against the idea that because the foetus is in an earlier stage of development that abortion is any less preventing (using this term rather than 'ending') a life, than doing so right before birth, or even after birth (at which point it's ending the life, not preventing) and as such, I don't/can't use the argument of 'it's not a life' to support the right to abortion. I can't dismiss the 'potential' element the way others do and apply different degrees of morality to cessation of a life due to the stage of development it's at. That distinction is only relevant for painless abortion for the life, and for not ending up in jail for murdering a baby :pac: That's all.

I'm not really arguing a course of action, I'm just focusing on one aspect of how I feel and discovering that apparently nobody else feels the same (except my mother hehe).

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html

They were TD's linked to these partied who I herd speak about the issue in clips on the news/primetime/etc and I felt it could do damage to the campaign if they did a lot of public speak on the issue!

Where does it state that?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where does it state that?

PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.

Well although it is great to see someone go for option 3 out of the 3 options I details, I would prefer to hear things from the horses mouth than second hand reported in a news paper myself. "I heard some clips" leaves me in a position where I can not hear the clips. Which is a shame.

However looking down the list in that link you have provided I am looking for the "certain parties" you mention. Let me work out which ones they might be:

Fianna FáilNo position on the circumstances where terminations are supported.

Ok so it is not them then clearly.

Greens: Favours a referendum and to repeal the Eighth Amendment. Members have mixed views on circumstances.

So not them either. But uselessly vague here so who knows.

Fine Gael: Position is not decided.

Or them for the same reason.

Social Democrats: allow for abortion on a range of grounds.

They do not say enough here to say if it is them or not. Potentially could be this party then, but that potential is based on what they do NOT say here, not what they do. "Range of grounds" simply says nothing about WHEN they think terminations should occur, and says pretty much nothing about what those grounds are.

Independent Alliance: No specific position taken by each of the five TDs

So not them either.

Independents4Change: Supports repealing the Eighth. Agrees with assembly recommendations, and that abortion is provided before 12 weeks and for a range of circumstances.

Certainly not them then as it is quite clearly stated, unlike any other party, what their believe on the limits are.

Rural Independents: Differing views. TD Mattie McGrath yesterday said he did not support abortions in any circumstances.

Again vague but doesn't sound like them either. Though clearly it is NOT Mattie you are speaking of.

PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances.

Again a "what is not said" potential here for it to be them. But "late as necessary" is open to a RANGE of interpretations as it is using the word NECESSARY here. As in, not no limits abortion, but abortions in cases of necessity. So it does not SOUND like it is them either. And in fact that is exactly my position. I think abortions purely by choice should have a time limit, but abortions related to actual necessity should exceed that limit. That is not, however, "no limits abortion". Quite the opposite.

Labour: Supports repealing the Eighth and allowing for terminations in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities.

Sinn Féin: Favours a referendum. Terminations should be allowed for rape, incest, and fatal foetal abnormalities.

So not them either. And actually the "in cases of rape" appeals to be unworkable nonsense. I would have expected these two parties to have their thinking caps on and notice that. Shameful. Unless, of course, they have found a way to make it workable where I and others have failed for many years. In which case I take it back, and I can not WAIT to hear their proposal(s)! I genuinely have no idea, maybe I just lack imagination, how to make "abortion for rape" workable and coherent.

Summary:

Your link is not showing ANY party identifying with "certain parties support abortion with no limits".

I am not seeing ONE, let alone the plural (you said parties not party). What am I missing exactly?

_Roz_ wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying there's a moral onus to seeing it through, if I thought there was, I would be pro-life. I'm literally just arguing against the idea that because the foetus is in an earlier stage of development that abortion is any less preventing (using this term rather than 'ending') a life, than doing so right before birth

Well if you are speaking of "life" purely in the sense of basic biology then yes, terminating a fetus is no less ending/preventing a life than terminating a -1 Day old Baby. Nor, for that matter, is it any less than killing a cow for steak or chopping down a tree for paper. That is all "ending life".

If we go beyond pure biology though and use a more robust and rounded definition of "life" then the difference is termination of fetus is preventing one from coming into being while terminating a cow or -1 Day old baby is actively ENDING one. Which is, I am sure you will note, very different indeed.

So you CAN use the "not ending a life" argument. You just have to be very specific about which of the many meanings of "life" you are using. One wonderful and beautiful but ALSO problematic thing about language.... especially English Language I suspect.... is that one word can mean many things in many contexts.

Take the word "sport" for example. It can mean bare knuckle cage match mixed martial arts violence. It can also mean lawn bowling. The link between the two aside from the word "sport" is.... well.... little more than breathing I guess.

Words are variable and contextual. And it pays in deep debates to be cognizant of their form in any given move.

I can't dismiss the 'potential' element the way others do and apply different degrees of morality to cessation of a life due to the stage of development it's at.

But we are not doing that either. It has nothing to do with the "stage of development" so much as it has to do with Attributes present or absent. The very attributes that mediate moral and ethcal concern are wholly absent in a 12 week old fetus. Nothing to do with "stages" and everything to do with viewing the entity as it is now, what it is now, in this moment and time. Nothing to do with stages that come before, or after, this moment.

If you list the attributes that mediate moral and ethical concern, everything on that list is simply not there.

_Roz_ wrote: »

I'm not really arguing a course of action, I'm just focusing on one aspect of how I feel and discovering that apparently nobody else feels the same (except my mother hehe).

I think more people feel the same than you think. You are just (relatively) unique in being in the "yes" camp while feeling it. The "potential" argument has been used by many pro-choice people and.... in the cases of some users I can not mention due to moderator actions.... it has pretty much been exclusively their ENTIRE argument.

So you are not alone in the feeling it seems by far, just relatively alone in where you are standing while having it

Not sure that will alleviate any negative feelings either. Man I suck at this.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Summary:

Your link is not showing ANY party identifying with "certain parties support abortion with no limits". I am not seeing ONE, let alone the plural (you said parties not party). What am I missing exactly?

When ever I heard TD's from especially PBP-Solidarity I always felt they spoke similarly to the above line and I feel if they speak a lot in the coming weeks they might damage the campaign they appeal to liberal. Stick to people like Leo and Simon as much as possible and they should be less issues!

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And actually the "in cases of rape" appeals to be unworkable nonsense. I would have expected these two parties to have their thinking caps on and notice that. Shameful. Unless, of course, they have found a way to make it workable where I and others have failed for many years.

Abortion on request up to 12 weeks covers rape.

The Citizens Assembly voted strongly to allow abortion for rape victims. The Oireachteas Committee said:

"In view of the complexities inherent in legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of rape or other sexual assault, the committee is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue by permitting termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason provided that it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks."

captbarnacles

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Abortion on request up to 12 weeks covers rape.

The Citizens Assembly voted strongly to allow abortion for rape victims. The Oireachteas Committee said:

"In view of the complexities inherent in legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of rape or other sexual assault, the committee is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue by permitting termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason provided that it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks."

Has there been any sensible rebuttal to this? I haven't heard one yet.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

When ever I heard TD's from especially PBP-Solidarity I always felt they spoke similarly to the above line and I feel if they speak a lot in the coming weeks they might damage the campaign they appeal to liberal.

Until I hear more specifics I genuinely can not agree OR disagree with you. As I said there is so much more left NOT said in that sentence than said. It simply does not give ANY detail.

One reading of the sentence makes it sound like they hold EXACTLY The position I do. In which case I would absolutely like to hear them say more.

But there really is nothing in the quote, unless you have others, that even implies let alone makes explicit, a belief in "no limits abortion".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But we are not doing that either. It has nothing to do with the "stage of development" so much as it has to do with Attributes present or absent. The very attributes that mediate moral and ethcal concern are wholly absent in a 12 week old fetus. Nothing to do with "stages" and everything to do with viewing the entity as it is now, what it is now, in this moment and time. Nothing to do with stages that come before, or after, this moment.

If you list the attributes that mediate moral and ethical concern, everything on that list is simply not there.

So you are not alone in the feeling it seems by far, just relatively alone in where you are standing while having it

Not sure that will alleviate any negative feelings either. Man I suck at this.

Yup, I getcha. And I completely agree that 'in this moment' the foetus is not a person, has no rights, is essentially an amoeba. But I just can't dismiss that, with time, it will change hehe. I mean, some scientists would argue that our perception of time as 'passing' is not true, and all times are equally real. In which case, the foetus is simultaneously an amoeba and a child and an adult and a person. That's kind of how I think of it.

Although, it's also true that if all times are equally real, then a foetus that is aborted never had the capacity to become a person, as it already was not!

This is what my brain is like. It's a stressful place. :pac:

_Roz_ wrote: »

But I just can't dismiss that, with time, it will change hehe.

And I "just cant" acknowledge it as relevant. So I guess it is just in out genetic make up somewhere. Perhaps I am more Vulcan than Human, but I can not take something as relevant purely based on feeling or emotion. I need a concurrent rational element to it which I am just not seeing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I "just cant" acknowledge it as relevant. So I guess it is just in out genetic make up somewhere. Perhaps I am more Vulcan than Human, but I can not take something as relevant purely based on feeling or emotion. I need a concurrent rational element to it which I am just not seeing.

And to me, the fact of it becoming a person if you don't intervene with an abortion, IS a rational thing to consider. :pac:

But yeah, we just have fundamentally different views on it. At the end of the day, morals, ethics etc are all just systems of measurement established by society and culture over time, so there's always going to be a bit of variation in people's perspectives.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sure only a few weeks ago you were saying 12 weeks was too much!!
I dunno but you keep finding fault with eveything. All your posts seem to be low level giving reasons to vote no. Its kinda like now you realised 12 weeks might win that you then bring in hardline TDs. At every opportunity you are doing it. "But what about x" and X is always a reason to vote no to repeal.

I have always said that the result of the marriage referendum was lower than I expected and it made me uncomfortable about this issue passing compared to how some people feel and that it will take a good turn out in Dublin/urban areas for it pass because I feel a lot of country areas will go no.
I also haven't seen as much demand online compared to others. However a local blogger posted about the issue and it good a views. This helps me believe a little more it will pass.
I also think it's important that every vote is gotten and to do this the repeal campaign needs to out their best team forward for debates/etc on tv and be careful who they select.
To get this to pass I think they need to reach the on the fence voters now and I think more traditional td's who support the repeal will help the repeal campaign more.

I suppose I might be a little negative on the matter and I keep find reasons why it might fail. Well one is I have heard people with concerns and for them to change their mind they right people need to front the campaign another is feel certain people are very complacent about the issue. Maybe in a few weeks I'll feel more confident about it.

_Roz_ wrote: »

And to me, the fact of it becoming a person if you don't intervene with an abortion, IS a rational thing to consider.

But for something to be rational, a rational argument has to be possible for it. But this is what has not happened. Calling it rational does not make it rational. Something is only rational when demonstrated to be so. And you yourself call it more a "feeling" than something you can adumbrate the rationality for. It might FEEL rational, but that does not qualify.

Whereas, for contrast, I can quite clearly (and, I am informed, at quite nauseating length

) lay out the exact rationales behind the positions I hold and why I hold them. Nothing I present (so far) has been based on "Da Feelz" as those younger than me are wont to say.

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary[, but no specified circumstances.

Does not equate to the claims made though does it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But for something to be rational, a rational argument has to be possible for it. But this is what has not happened. Calling it rational does not make it rational. Something is only rational when demonstrated to be so. And you yourself call it more a "feeling" than something you can adumbrate the rationality for. It might FEEL rational, but that does not qualify.

Whereas, for contrast, I can quite clearly (and, I am informed, at quite nauseating length ) lay out the exact rationales behind the positions I hold and why I hold them. Nothing I present (so far) has been based on "Da Feelz" as those younger than me are wont to say.

To me, it is rational to consider the consequences of action or inaction, before acting. And the consequences here are the difference between life and death. I do have feelz tho. :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Does not equate to the claims made though does it?

It's how they come across tough to some people and they might damage the campaign in my opinion. It pro-life campaign can get any hint of this they could have a field day in my opinion.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm sorry, what is your main objective exactly?

I'm not sure we are on the same page there. Or book. Maybe in the same library, maybe not.

Repealing the 8th amendment.

_Roz_ wrote: »

To me, it is rational to consider the consequences of action or inaction, before acting.

That part I do not think we ever disagreed on though. We are certainly on the same page there.

Hoboo

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I suppose I might be a little negative on the matter and I keep find reasons why it might fail.

I think it will fail. The 12 week proposal will sway many 'on the fence' voters who would have voted Yes had it been only in cases of incest, rape or foetal abnormality. So women like Savita Halappanavar will continue to die. Its an all or nothing approach which I believe will end up with nothing.

Zubeneschamali

captbarnacles wrote: »

Has there been any sensible rebuttal to this? I haven't heard one yet.

No, just a lot of shouting about how abortion on demand will never pass in Ireland.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That part I do not think we ever disagreed on though. We are certainly on the same page there.

True, you just think the consequences are different than me, I suppose!

:pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's how they come across tough to some people and they might damage the campaign in my opinion. It pro-life campaign can get any hint of this they could have a field day in my opinion.

Get a hold of what though? You said some TD's/parties are for late term abortions (on demand) whereas this isn't the case at all.

Let the pro-life people say what they like, thankfully most people are educated enough in ireland to see through thier lies.

Repealing the 8th (imo) will be a slam dunk.

pleas advice

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Abortion on request up to 12 weeks covers rape.

The Citizens Assembly voted strongly to allow abortion for rape victims. The Oireachteas Committee said:

"In view of the complexities inherent in legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of rape or other sexual assault, the committee is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue by permitting termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason provided that it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks."

I wonder will there be an opt out allowed for GPs, perhaps on religious or ethical grounds?

Yep. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/conscience-clause-gps-will-be-allowed-to-opt-out-of-abortion-pill-law-36410265.html

_Roz_ wrote: »

True, you just think the consequences are different than me, I suppose!

No I just question their relevance. That a fetus NOT aborted MIGHT become a sentient agent is the part I am not seeing the rationale for considering relevant. Feelz yes. But a rational argument no. And as I said, I am just someone who generally needs both.

Edward M

I think I'm going to vote for repeal, based on my perception as acceptable is not everyone's.
I've always been pretty much my own man, made crunch decisions throughout my life based on what I thought was the best course of action for me and since I had a family for "us".
I have lived with and used contraception, contraception by pill which my wife has used.
We both don't know how many abortions we have induced by using this method.
If my wife or my partner or whatever at the time, were ever so unlucky as to conceive a pregnancy we would have gone through with the conception, but that would have been our wish at the time, but looking at the fact that we used contraceptive pills we don't know actually how many times we may have actually conceived that we didn't know about.
Our children, when we had them were planned, but erstwhile pills kept us safe.
I now feel, having considered everything, that it would actually be hypocritical of me to vote no.
It won't cause me to compromise my beliefs by allowing others to follow theirs.
This has taken me a while to get right in my own mind.

Loafing Oaf

pleas advice wrote: »

I wonder will there be an opt out allowed for GPs, perhaps on religious or ethical grounds?