nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Men's rights on Abortion?

drunkmonkey

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

I would respectfully disagree. The problem with your approach to the good /argument / bad argument idea is that you get hopelessly lost and tie yourself in knots in the endless vagries of hypothetical scenarios. Your core points are completely lost in all that.

Yet demonstrably the only one tied up and lost here has been you. Completely in fact. As I said in MONTHS and even YEARS of debating this issue you are literally the first to completely lose the run of the conversation like this at all, let alone so spectacularly.

But my approach to ANY argument when someone loses track is to salvage it by going back to the basics. Which I did, but you have decided not to respond in kind and just get personal. Which will not aid either of us really, nor am I the one who that will make look bad.

There is nothing complex about the "good argument / bad argument" approach either. We appear to be entirely agreed we want women to have the free choice of abortion in our country. I am someone who believes attacking bad arguments from the anti-choicers is a good move (and so far they are ALL bad).

But I also believe in a clean house. If we see bad arguments from our own side, it is a win for ALL of us if we deal with those too.

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

Has it ever occured to you that the termination of pregnancy is also a complex issue - and your attitude that that those nasty wimen 'killing unborns' (sic) as you put it it is simplified bs.

no, because i don't believe it is a complex issue.

gozunda wrote: »

Did it ever enter your skull that couples ie both men and real women (and not just your nasty murdering winen) may make the decision together to go ahead with a termination.

of course. but it's not relevant and it won't change my view on the issue.

gozunda wrote: »

Yes it happens and a lot more frequently than your simplified logic appears to allow for. Even where a real life woman has to make that decision alone based on reasons not excluding rape abuse incest health poverty homelessness etc that remains her decision and you have no right to force your judgement on her or on where applicable any couple.

where a woman or couple make the decisian to kill the born child that remains her or their decisian and one has no right to force their judgement upon her or them. see how that logic fails? well for me it is the same with the unborn outside medical reasons.

gozunda wrote: »

A 'new born' child is not the same as an un viable fetus of under 12 weeks. There is NO comparison whatsoever and Medical knowledge agrees. Whather one or more partners walk away pre or post birth is a very different issue - but don't let that stop you in your rambles or judgement of people.

a fetus has the same right to life as a new born child. unless the fetus causes the mother's life to be under threat, would cause the mother to become permanently disabled or injured.

gozunda wrote: »

Btw your take on abortions and fathers is quite hillarious- if a woman terminates a pregnancy then obviously there is no 'child' from which to walk away from! Or are you attempting to use that issue as simply another brick in your badly built wall of logic?

the argument ultimately is, if the mother can abort a child and walk away from the responsibility of bringing the child into the world, then why shouldn't the father be able to walk away should she decide to keep the child and he doesn't want it.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hardly a useful point though.

I am a sentient agent with rights.

A fetus is a biological structure in the process of only building the pre-requisites of something that potentially might produce a sentience later on.

Its an entirely fallacious comparison. I would not be pro-any-choice resulting in death at 30 weeks gestation either, no need to point guns anywhere.

In my mind sentient entities have rights, non-sentient entities do not. Nor have I ever been shown a reason why they might. It is that simple. The fetus is the moral equivalent of a rock to me.

the unborn have rights, you have been shown reasons why they do. sentients is irrelevant in this case given the unborn will become sentient unless circumstances happen to stop it from doing so. the fetus is not the moral equivalent of a rock in reality because a rock does not become sentient, a fetus will do so unless circumstances happen to stop it from doing so.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

Using 'rape' as a pro choice argument, seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction to the pro life 'you're a murderer' argument.

This is a very emotional subject and that effects how people vote, when truthfully this should be a logic based debate as that is the only way to actually come to the right conclusion.
Personally i don't think i could have a child aborted, but that's a choice my wife and I would make. And that's the point, we would have a choice!
This whole thing has already gone to extremes where pro life think abortion will be the new contraception and pro choice think the other side are old bigots.

Imo the wording in the referendum should be along the lines stating that: 'Do you want to give women the choice to have an abortion'
And that's what the debate should be around. The freedom to choose.

There are pros and cons to both options, but I will vote for pro choice, because what gives me the right to decide what someone else can and can't do with their own lives? Or why should someone else be able to limit the options available to my wife and I in the future?

But i do think men must have a vote in this, because to exclude men from this referendum now sets a precedent that I'm sure our government would find a way to abuse in the future to their benefit.

I also can't stand the catholic church stick its unwanted nose in state business, after all the crimes they have committed, they still think they have the right to dictate to us how we should think!!

it already is a logic based debate and whichever way one votes they believe they have come to the right conclusion. i believe the way i'm going to vote is the right conclusion and you believe the way you are going to vote is the right conclusion. the wording of the referendum is fine given what is being voted on, and the debate around it is thus focusing on the many issues involved.

Shadowthrone

end of the road wrote: »

a fetus has the same right to life as a new born child. unless the fetus causes the mother's life to be under threat, would cause the mother to become permanently disabled or injured.

That's due to the 8th, one of the points in this is that the fetus should not have those rights up until the 12 week point.

end of the road wrote: »

the argument ultimately is, if the mother can abort a child and walk away from the responsibility of bringing the child into the world, then why shouldn't the father be able to walk away should she decide to keep the child and he doesn't want it.

Wait... that is exactly how it is now... the father can, at any point from conception to when he dies, simply walk away from the whole family and there is nothing to be done about it.

But with the current laws a women must carry that child through to full term, go through child birth (cause that's easy...) then after all that she can put the baby up for adoption if she wants to, how is that fair? Or is being fair not on the agenda here?

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn have rights, you have been shown reasons why they do. sentients is irrelevant in this case given the unborn will become sentient unless circumstances happen to stop it from doing so. the fetus is not the moral equivalent of a rock in reality because a rock does not become sentient, a fetus will do so unless circumstances happen to stop it from doing so.

Again the unborn only have rights due to the 8th. stating a fetus will come to sentience 'unless circumstances happen to stop it' greatly undermines a woman's role in child birth. They are more than reproductive vessels, you get that right?

At less than 16 weeks the fetus has no chance of survival without the mother, yet you deem that fetus to have the same right as living breathing person? why is that? logic, or emotional sentiment reinforced by years of catholic guilt?

Now as I said before I could not go through with it, but that doesn't give me the right to stop others doing it, does it?

end of the road wrote: »

it already is a logic based debate and whichever way one votes they believe they have come to the right conclusion. i believe the way i'm going to vote is the right conclusion and you believe the way you are going to vote is the right conclusion. the wording of the referendum is fine given what is being voted on, and the debate around it is thus focusing on the many issues involved.

Not really, logical debate has gone out the window as soon as both sides start name calling. The many issues involved are simply emotional on the voters part.
Murders, bigots, etc etc

The true issue should be the freedom of choice, and whether you allow someone else to have it, or if you think your opinion is more important than their free will.
To have a logical debate on that, requires the removal of emotion and the anger felt by both sides. something that is very difficult for people to do, if not impossible.

end of the road

Shadowthrone wrote: »

That's due to the 8th, one of the points in this is that the fetus should not have those rights up until the 12 week point.

yes hence my decisian to vote no to repeal.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

Again the unborn only have rights due to the 8th. stating a fetus will come to sentience 'unless circumstances happen to stop it' greatly undermines a woman's role in child birth. They are more than reproductive vessels, you get that right?

At less than 16 weeks the fetus has no chance of survival without the mother, yet you deem that fetus to have the same right as living breathing person? why is that? logic, or emotional sentiment reinforced by years of catholic guilt?

no catholic guilt on my part as i was not raised catholic or of any religion. i deem the fetus should have rights based on logic, that it is a human being which will develop into a person.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

Now as I said before I could not go through with it, but that doesn't give me the right to stop others doing it, does it?

most people couldn't go through with killing their new born child, but that doesn't give them the right to stop others from doing it. this is why your logic fails, because sometimes society does have the right to stop people from doing things because it effects others.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

The true issue should be the freedom of choice, and whether you allow someone else to have it, or if you think your opinion is more important than their free will.

the debate is also whether the unborn should continue to have rights or not. that is just as much what the debate is about, then the choice to be able to kill them, which rightly we don't afford such choice to people when it comes to other human beings.

Shadowthrone

end of the road wrote: »

most people couldn't go through with killing their new born child, but that doesn't give them the right to stop others from doing it. this is why your logic fails, because sometimes society does have the right to stop people from doing things because it effects others.

the debate is also whether the unborn should continue to have rights or not. that is just as much what the debate is about, then the choice to be able to kill them, which rightly we don't afford such choice to people when it comes to other human beings.

See again your confusing your opinion for logic. I understand that you deem a fetus to be a human being and therefore should have equal rights. But scientifically it is not a sentient being and there not yet a human being. Yes it has the potential to become one but that is not enough to give it the same rights as an already sentient being.
I have the potential to win the lotto, doesn't mean a bank should treat me as if I have and give me loads of credit.

The current debate is set at 12 weeks. At which point it is not technically a human being due to being non sentient. Therefore with emotions removed... should not get the same rights as it's mother.

The hard part there is removing the emotion to be able to view it as a non sentient being. Something you and most people will struggle with.

end of the road

Shadowthrone wrote: »

See again your confusing your opinion for logic. I understand that you deem a fetus to be a human being and therefore should have equal rights. But scientifically it is not a sentient being and there not yet a human being. Yes it has the potential to become one but that is not enough to give it the same rights as an already sentient being.

it actually is enough, given that an unborn fetus will become a sentient baby before it is actually born. that is why sentients is not a viable or valid argument in the decisian as to whether the unborn should have rights.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

The current debate is set at 12 weeks. At which point it is not technically a human being due to being non sentient. Therefore with emotions removed... should not get the same rights as it's mother.

it has to get the same rights as it's mother due to the reality that it will become sentient unless circumstances happen that stop it from becoming so. where there is an exemption to that is where the mother's life is under threat, the mother is under threat of permanent disability or injury, or where the baby will sadly not live to term and FFA.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

The hard part there is removing the emotion to be able to view it as a non sentient being. Something you and most people will struggle with.

this is a special case due to the fact that the unborn will become sentient unless circumstances intervene to stop it. so that is why the sentients argument isn't viable or valid unlike other issues.

Shadowthrone

end of the road wrote: »

it actually is enough, given that an unborn fetus will become a sentient baby before it is actually born. that is why sentients is not a viable or valid argument in the decisian as to whether the unborn should have rights.

In your opinion. I understand you feel strongly about you opinion and how have that right. but that doesn't change the fact that scientifically it is a non sentient being. and therefore isn't entitled to the rights of the mother at that point.

end of the road wrote: »

it has to get the same rights as it's mother due to the reality that it will become sentient unless circumstances happen that stop it from becoming so. where there is an exemption to that is where the mother's life is under threat, the mother is under threat of permanent disability or injury, or where the baby will sadly not live to term and FFA.

this is a special case due to the fact that the unborn will become sentient unless circumstances intervene to stop it. so that is why the sentients argument isn't viable or valid unlike other issues.

Again I do understand your point of view, but it is based on your emotional connecting with the idea of the living child. At the 12 week point it is not a living child yet and should not be treated as one.

At the end of the day you can not base a nations constitution on potential. The fetus does have the potential to be born yes, but you cannot make rules on potential.

Immigrants have the potential to be terrorists, does that mean we should constitutionally ban all immigrants?

this is not a reasonable approach. Let the government legislate and if they choose to keep abortion illegal fair enough, but get it out of the dam constitution.

I mean, does it not strike you as strange that we are the only first world country which still has abortion illegal?

All that said, I have no intention of changing your mind, I am just trying to state that this is an emotional debate when it shouldn't be. and this is way off topic so I'll leave it here

njs030

end of the road wrote: »

it actually is enough, given that an unborn fetus will become a sentient baby before it is actually born. that is why sentients is not a viable or valid argument in the decisian as to whether the unborn should have rights.

it has to get the same rights as it's mother due to the reality that it will become sentient unless circumstances happen that stop it from becoming so. where there is an exemption to that is where the mother's life is under threat, the mother is under threat of permanent disability or injury, or where the baby will sadly not live to term and FFA.

this is a special case due to the fact that the unborn will become sentient unless circumstances intervene to stop it. so that is why the sentients argument isn't viable or valid unlike other issues.

You're repeating the same thing over and over no matter what the other poster says?

Everyone and everything has potential to become x unless y happens.

One eyed Jack

Shadowthrone wrote: »

See again your confusing your opinion for logic.

The logic in EOTR's argument is solid. It's you who is conflating opinion with logic in this instance.

I understand that you deem a fetus to be a human being and therefore should have equal rights. But scientifically it is not a sentient being and there not yet a human being. Yes it has the potential to become one but that is not enough to give it the same rights as an already sentient being.

You're conflating two different points of view there to put forward an argument which supports your opinion. Scientists have many different opinions and points of view on what constitutes life, but the one thing they do acknowledge as inarguable is the fact that in the context of human development, the entity in the womb is human, as distinct from being classed as any other type of species.

The second point at which your opinion is at odds with reality is that human rights and sentient rights are two completely distinct and separate philosophical concepts. Human rights are not determined by sentience, they are determined by the one sole shared trait of being human. Because rights are given effect and recognition by law, it absolutely can be determined in law that the unborn has an equal right to life as the right to life of the mother. The 8th amendment doesn't do this however, as it specifically recognises that human rights are not absolute, and so while the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, it only has to vindicate and protect that right as far as is practicable. In cases where the mothers life is at risk due to her pregnancy, then it simply isn't practical to continue to maintain the right to life of the unborn.

Nobody is suggesting that the unborn has the same rights as the mother, the implication is simply that the unborn has an equal right to life as the right to life of the mother, as far as is practical. The mother still has far more rights than the unborn. The unborn currently has only one right, or at least was commonly viewed in law as having only one right until Judge Humphreys opined that the unborn child has many more rights under Irish law, and you can read about that case here -

The Supreme Court case that needs to be resolved before the Eighth Amendment referendum

In short, the law is going to trump scientific opinion every day of the week, but the laws are informed by scientific opinions, and scientists are not a hive mind, or a shared sentience if you prefer. Their opinions with regard to human development vary greatly, but scientists generally agree with the concept that human life and the beginning of a completely separate new life begins at conception. It then becomes a matter of legal opinions as to where on that spectrum of human development do we begin to assign rights, and in what circumstances those rights can be upheld, and in what circumstances those rights can be determined to be of lesser weight when balanced against the rights of another individial.

Human rights are relative, not absolute.

I have the potential to win the lotto, doesn't mean a bank should treat me as if I have and give me loads of credit.

You can't say you weren't aware of the economic boom when banks were handing out 100% mortgages to individuals on minimum wage. The banks did treat individuals like they'd won the lotto and gave them credit as though they had won the lotto.

The current debate is set at 12 weeks. At which point it is not technically a human being due to being non sentient. Therefore with emotions removed... should not get the same rights as it's mother.

It actually is a human being, there's no technicalities about that, and as I've previously mentioned it's about the only thing that the majority of scientists can agree on - that human life begins at conception. It is a question of the law and politics as to where on that spectrum of human development we assign privileges and responsibilities with regard to human rights, and you simply cannot separate emotional considerations from that argument as that would be to deny one of the things which is caused by sentience - an awareness of self, and an awareness of others. This is the basis of empathy, a concept which human beings are generally capable of, and our expressions of empathy towards others are based upon beliefs and experiences, entirely subjective, entirely egotistical, and in no way useful as a measure of objectivity and factual observation. That's exactly why when we talk about human rights, science is probably the worst way inform the discussion, because scientific opinion too is based upon consensus by peer review, by other scientists, who are human.

If you want to have a discussion where emotion is removed from the discussion, then you wouldn't be part of that discussion, you would be reliant upon computers to perform calculations to determine the most appropriate course of action in any given scenario. With the emotions removed, a computer would only be able to determine an outcome on the basis of information which has been fed into it, and if you already believe that the unborn shouldn't have an equal right to life as the mother (introducing your own bias into the equation), then your hypothesis is going to be supported by the output of a computer programs, because you designed it.

The hard part there is removing the emotion to be able to view it as a non sentient being. Something you and most people will struggle with.

In spite of the fact that you imagine you have removed emotion from your own arguments, you haven't, and that presents a difficulty for you, because your argument based upon sentient rights is a completely different argument to the argument everyone else is having about human rights. That struggle to make your point using a different frame of reference to everyone else is a problem for you. It sure as hell doesn't present any difficulty for me because your argument is simply invalid, and has more logic holes in it than a swiss cheese.

If you imagine you're thinking critically, then there are different schools of thought on what constitutes critical thinking too, and some philosophers have argued that emotions are a critical element (no pun intended) which influences critical thinking. Ignoring our emotions leads to mental distress and mental illness, which compromises our critical faculties and leads to compromising our decision making capabilities.

end of the road

Shadowthrone wrote: »

In your opinion. I understand you feel strongly about you opinion and how have that right. but that doesn't change the fact that scientifically it is a non sentient being. and therefore isn't entitled to the rights of the mother at that point.

the reality is they are entitled to equal right to life as the mother in this country as per the constitution. this would have been decided based on solid reasoning, which wouldn't have included sentients, as we don't determine human rights based on sentients, as it's not valid or viable to do so.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

Again I do understand your point of view, but it is based on your emotional connecting with the idea of the living child. At the 12 week point it is not a living child yet and should not be treated as one.

it is a would be child so therefore still has to have protection in place to insure it's right to life is upheld as much as is practical to do so. that's not just my view, but the logical view based on the fact it is still a human being which is developing into a person, and we have laws protecting other human beings from harm.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

Let the government legislate and if they choose to keep abortion illegal fair enough, but get it out of the dam constitution.

ultimately the protection of one's life as much as is practical needs to be in the constitution, as it insures one's right to life is upheld as much as is possible to do so. while in this particular case the proposals to remove the right to life apply to the unborn up to 12 weeks, allowing the government to legislate on the issue of the right to life has the potential to put us at risk if we ever got a bad government, and therefore the population needs protection that goes above the government.

Shadowthrone wrote: »

I mean, does it not strike you as strange that we are the only first world country which still has abortion illegal?

no . i think bar medical reasons it's great we have it illegal. we have no obligation to be the same as other first world countries. we must be our own country and operate to our needs and wishes and standards.

notjustsweet wrote: »

You're repeating the same thing over and over no matter what the other poster says?

Everyone and everything has potential to become x unless y happens.

the reality is that there will be some repetition given the nature of the topic. it's possibly unavoidable as much as we would like it to be otherwise.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet demonstrably the only one tied up and lost here has been you. Completely in fact. As I said in MONTHS and even YEARS of debating this issue you are literally the first to completely lose the run of the conversation like this at all, let alone so spectacularly.

But my approach to ANY argument when someone loses track is to salvage it by going back to the basics. Which I did, but you have decided not to respond in kind and just get personal. Which will not aid either of us really, nor am I the one who that will make look bad.

There is nothing complex about the "good argument / bad argument" approach either. We appear to be entirely agreed we want women to have the free choice of abortion in our country. I am someone who believes attacking bad arguments from the anti-choicers is a good move (and so far they are ALL bad).

But I also believe in a clean house. If we see bad arguments from our own side, it is a win for ALL of us if we deal with those too.

Im sorry, but an appeal to longevity does not help you argument either. If as you claim - absolutly no issues with your argument have ever been pointed out - then I guess I must be the first. Take that how you will. Btw I made no personal comments - I simply pointed out flaws in the logic as I found them. Sadly I suspect at least some of this type of approach 're. good argument / bad argument may simply be feeding those who would shut the whole debate down and keep the status quo - clean house or otherwise.

end of the road

That Angry Scientist wrote: »

Too many scaremongering Pro Lifers on these forums.

not at all. most pro-lifers are not interested in scare mongering. it's not in our interests to get involved in such tactics.

njs030

end of the road wrote: »

i think bar medical reasons it's great we have it illegal. we have no obligation to be the same as other first world countries. we must be our own country and operate to our needs and wishes and standards..

You think it's great that we are the only first world country who refuses woman in crisis pregnancys to have choices?
That's a worrying and sad thought that in this era there is still people who demand to control other people's choices.
It doesn't affect you in the slightest if people you haven't met and never will make make a choice about something you will never know they made.

njs030

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. most pro-lifers are not interested in scare mongering. it's not in our interests to get involved in such tactics.

LOL... Remember the scan photo? Nice attempt at propaganda. Unfortunately he chose one that was past 12 weeks though.

ForestFire

notjustsweet wrote: »

LOL... Remember the scan photo? Nice attempt at propaganda. Unfortunately he chose one that was past 12 weeks though.

Remember it was 12 weeks and 3 days, which is within the error of accuracy for the dating of a baby...Hardly scaremongering now is it?

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

no, because i don't believe it is a complex issue.

I feel sad for that evident lack of insight. It is not surprising therefore you world view is quite so black and white perhaps.

of course. but it's not relevant and it won't change my view on the issue.

I disagree - it is very relevant. Perhaps you should revisit that.

where a woman or couple make the decisian to kill the born child that remains her or their decisian and one has no right to force their judgement upon her or them. see how that logic fails? well for me it is the same with the unborn outside medical reasons.

There is no born child being murdered - proposed or otherwise. Your logic is at fault with that false comparison.

a fetus has the same right to life as a new born child. unless the fetus causes the mother's life to be under threat, would cause the mother to become permanently disabled or injured.

No I think that is one of the significant points of this referendum. Nearly all developed western countries hold that a fetus is not comparable with regards to developmental stage of a new born child. Time also you got your head around that.

the argument ultimately is, if the mother can abort a child and walk away from the responsibility of bringing the child into the world, then why shouldn't the father be able to walk away should she decide to keep the child and he doesn't want it.

So your saying that it is the same woman in both scenarios? And the man in a fit of spite decides to walk away when she wants keeps the second child? Thats very for tit for tat behaviour no?

Wibbs

That Angry Scientist wrote: »

Yes at conception some scientist deem it to be a human being, but with the recent breakthrough in cloning mammals this has been a hot debate in the community. If you clone a human, but that clone never gains sentience is it still a human being?

Aside from the abortion debate that seems more than a bit of a complete non debate to me. On one obvious point; while of course the mechanism by which they are produced differs identical twins share the same DNA just like a clone. Would there be a "hot debate" over a twin that never gains sentience? If there is/was, then whatever opinion held sway on that forum then apply the same to clones.

Please don't state science is opinion based, that is so grotesquely wrong that I don't even know where to begin to describe how wrong it is. That is wrong to the very foundations of what science is.

Actually science can be and often is very much opinion based and this is and has been pretty evident down the years. Now they are opinions based on current evidence and established facts and theories depending on the science("soft sciences" like the social sciences not nearly so much, where much of it is pure opinion dressed up in intellectual wankery), but opinion holds large sway in the sciences. Which is usually a very good thing as without many opinions that swayed from the established opinion de jour science wouldn't have kept progressing and keeps doing so.

Sentience and how we describe a attributes of a life are more complicated than simply conception.

That's true. Sentience itself is a very fuzzy term and very much a sliding scale. In some cultures and not so long ago even in the West a newborn up to a few months old wasn't considered as "human" as an older child and laws followed that belief in cases of infanticide.

With abortion there is also a sliding scale including among Pro Choice folks. Those kinda on the fence would likely be OK with terminations at 10 weeks, but would baulk at numbers beyond that. Only an extremely tiny minority of even the most ardent Pro Choice folks would be OK with the termination of an 8 month old foetus. Survivability outside the womb is another point on the scale. One that has shortened down the years with medical science and technology. Things may get even more confusing if and when medical science can keep even younger foetuses alive until what would have been full term.

It seems to me at least, where each of us comes on this sliding scale is the real debate. There would be some, again a minority, out there who would consider contraception within that sliding scale and would see the contraceptive pill as the thin end of the wedge. The Catholic Church and true blue Catholics for example. On the other hand I've known a few "Pro Life"*
folks who will almost certainly vote No, but would be OK with the morning after pill.

My personal sliding scale I suppose would be around the ten weeks mark. For healthy foetuses. In the case of terrible "accidents of nature" where life wouldn't be worth the name if they made it to full term I would extend that timeframe.

*I parenthesis that term because I frankly don't like it. It sounds like their detractors are "Pro Death".

njs030

ForestFire wrote: »

Remember it was 12 weeks and 3 days, which is within the error of accuracy for the dating of a baby...Hardly scaremongering now is it?

Why put it up at all? What point did it make? Most people know what a scan photo looks like, it's irrelevant.

It was quite silly to find one that was past 12 weeks. Though realistically a 6/8 week fetus does look like a blob and that's not quite going to have the intended cute factor.

One eyed Jack

Shadowthrone wrote: »

In your opinion. I understand you feel strongly about you opinion and how have that right. but that doesn't change the fact that scientifically it is a non sentient being. and therefore isn't entitled to the rights of the mother at that point.

Your logic is flawed, and I suspect your non-sequitur is due to the fact that you imagine human rights are based upon sentience. They aren't, and they never were. Whether or not an entity is regarded as having human rights is not based upon sentience, it is determined by the characteristic of being human. Human rights are effected by the law in any given jurisdiction, and in Ireland, the unborn has a right to life, and the unborn is defined in Irish law as human life from the moment of implantation to the time when it emerges from the body of the woman. Human rights are more informed by political consensus than they are by scientific consensus.

That's why for example the laws were changed to hold men responsible for the welfare of their children rather than allowing them to abdicate their responsibilities to their children, and there is no political consensus strong enough to change that position. Some people have tried to equate a right given to men to abandon their children with a right given to women to have an abortion, and they've tried in all sorts of creative ways, from gender equality to paper abortion, but the political will just isn't there, and so this is unlikely ever to become a right enforceable in law, because it's effect would deny women the right to apply to the court at some point in the future for a maintenance order for the child should their circumstances change and they may need financial support from the childs father.

Again I do understand your point of view, but it is based on your emotional connecting with the idea of the living child. At the 12 week point it is not a living child yet and should not be treated as one.

Your point of view is based upon creating an emotional disconnect between a living child, and a living child. How a child is defined in different circumstances and what rights they should or shouldn't be afforded is a matter of law, and on that score your argument is coming up well short so far.

At the end of the day you can not base a nations constitution on potential. The fetus does have the potential to be born yes, but you cannot make rules on potential.

Eh? That is the very thing upon which a Constitution is based! It is a guiding document for a society, and as I mentioned previously, human rights too are aspirational, based entirely upon potential, and any arguments about Constitutional law and human rights law are based upon a consensus of aspirations which have the potential to lead to social progress. The argument for repealing the 8th amendment is based upon the potential effects it has for women. If I were to consider your line of reasoning as legitimate, you've just shot a gaping hole in the pro-choice argument, because we make choices based upon potential outcomes and to deny women that choice because according to you we don't base a nations constitution on potential, or we don't make rules about potential, would rule out the possibility of women being granted the right to an abortion, and instead they should let nature take it's course when they have the potential to become pregnant.

Thank fcuk for your sake I don't take that argument seriously :pac:

Immigrants have the potential to be terrorists, does that mean we should constitutionally ban all immigrants?

We certainly have that capability, and if an argument could be presented to support the belief that we should ban immigrants to this country because they are a threat to the nations safety by virtue of the fact that they are potential terrorists, then there's nothing stopping us from doing just that. The short answer to your question is "Yes, we can!", as demonstrated recently by the Trump administration in the US. Didn't succeed, but certainly it's not beyond what can be done, potentially, of course

this is not a reasonable approach. Let the government legislate and if they choose to keep abortion illegal fair enough, but get it out of the dam constitution.

There's no mention of abortion in the constitution in the first place, so it would be hard to remove what isn't there. What I think you might be referring to is the States acknowledgement of the right to life of the unborn. Allowing Government to legislate for abortion is actually a terrible idea in reality, because abortion then becomes a political football issue, and because politicians care more about their political careers than they do about the interests of the nation, I would suggest you take a look at how previously TD's have voted on the various members bills that have been introduced relating to legislating to broaden our abortion laws in this country. I'll give you a hint that might save you some time - it hasn't gone well, with most bills being introduced by a minority, and voted down by the majority. It appears that TDs are thinking more about the potential effect on their political careers than they are about the potential impact on the nation.

I mean, does it not strike you as strange that we are the only first world country which still has abortion illegal?

The only thing that strikes me as strange about that question is how ill-informed it is. Abortion is not illegal in Ireland, abortions are carried out in hospitals in Ireland, so to suggest that we are among a number of first world countries where abortion is illegal is simply false. Perhaps you meant to say that Ireland is one of many first world countries where the unborn has a right to life, or maybe one of many first world countries where elective abortions are illegal.

Personally, I don't find anything strange about that, as I understand the reasons for it. Even the European Court of Human Rights understands the reasons for it, which is why they regard the broad margin of appreciation which Ireland has in relation to it's laws on abortion. I'll regard the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights far more influential in relation to our laws on abortion than any toothless UN Committee which criticises Ireland for the potential harm it argues is caused by the 8th amendment in our Constitution.

All that said, I have no intention of changing your mind, I am just trying to state that this is an emotional debate when it shouldn't be. and this is way off topic so I'll leave it here

All that said, I only argue with the intention of changing your mind because it is a potential outcome of the discussion. If I didn't believe there exists the potential to change your mind, then any discussion would simply be a waste of time and I wouldn't bother my arse getting involved. Your opinion that it shouldn't be an emotional debate doesn't actually carry any weight for anyone who believes that it is an emotional debate, particularly when the outcome of any discussion involves the potential emotional impact on people of any potential outcome, whether that discussion involves the potential emotional impact on women of denying or allowing them an abortion, or whether that discussion involves the potential emotional impact on men of denying or allowing them to abdicate their responsibilities towards their biological children, and the potential emotional impact on children of repealing laws which were introduced to prevent men from doing so, because we are already aware of the potential outcome of doing so - we would then have a society where men would have no responsibility for their biological children, and this has a negative impact on society, which is why any arguments to convince people of the potential benefit to society of such a move are generally regarded as being entirely irrational.

ForestFire

I'll Follow-up to my previous post because I believe that all information should be freely available in this discussion.

There is a huge difference in the scans as they approach 12 weeks.

The links below are to a 1)9 week scan, 2)11W6D scan, 3)12 week scan and and 4)11 week fetus impression.

Deciding the dates and cutoffs is a very difficult decision and with lots of different considerations to be taken into account both for an against any date.

Yes the best option is as soon as possible and as late as necessary, but should there be some finite protection for the equal right to life?

Its your choice to click, but I think every voter needs to be informed whatever way they vote.

http://www.advancedwomensimaging.com.au/files/imagecache/page-image-enlarged/img/page/9WeekEmbyro.jpg

https://images.fitpregnancy.mdpcdn.com/sites/fitpregnancy.com/files/styles/scale_1500_1500/public/11-weeks-pregnant-fetus.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5msY2ETl0_w/Uem1QenEuwI/AAAAAAAAAfI/kQkkq_SlPuc/s1600/12+WEEKS_0002.jpg

https://images.fitpregnancy.mdpcdn.com/sites/fitpregnancy.com/files/styles/scale_1500_1500/public/11-weeks-pregnant-fetus.jpg

end of the road

notjustsweet wrote: »

You think it's great that we are the only first world country who refuses woman in crisis pregnancys to have choices?
That's a worrying and sad thought that in this era there is still people who demand to control other people's choices.
It doesn't affect you in the slightest if people you haven't met and never will make make a choice about something you will never know they made.

yes, i think it's great that we do not allow pregnant women the choice to kill their unborn child in ireland unless it is for exceptional circumstances. all countries control choices to an extent, on the basis of it being for the greater good of society. we just happen to extend those controls to trying to prevent the killing of the unborn, and i support that and i'm not sorry that i do.
it doesn't effect me in the slightest if people i have never met and never will meet, make the choice to kill someone else for example, but i am entitled to state that they are wrong, and to support laws that prohibit such an act from taking place.

ForestFire

notjustsweet wrote: »

Why put it up at all? What point did it make? Most people know what a scan photo looks like, it's irrelevant.

It was quite silly to find one that was past 12 weeks. Though realistically a 6/8 week fetus does look like a blob and that's not quite going to have the intended cute factor.

I'm sorry now, Why not put it it up, it is very relevant, how can you not see that.

The worst thing you can do is try to block information.

I could say half the stuff up here "Most" people know so why are you posting it.

Lets have an open and informed debate?

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

I disagree - it is very relevant. Perhaps you should revisit that.

i won't be revisiting it. i have researched enough to be happy with the conclusion i have come to.

gozunda wrote: »

No I think that is one of the significant points of this referendum. Nearly all developed western countries hold that a fetus is not comparable with regards to developmental stage of a new born child. Time also you got your head around that.

just because other western countries think something doesn't make them right.

njs030

ForestFire wrote: »

I'm sorry now, Why not put it it up, it is very relevant, how can you not see that.

The worst thing you can do is try to block information.

I could say half the stuff up here "Most" people know so why are you posting it.

Lets have an open and informed debate?

I have no problem having an open and informed debate but you've missed the point entirely. There's simply no need try and pull on people's emotions by using scan photos. We all know and understand the basics of reproduction and anyone who wants to see them can probably use Google given we're on the Internet.

It's the same kind of emotive language that eotr is employing with "murder" and "killing" when actually all that's being asked is to let people make their own choices.

Can women be allowed to make their own choices and have that happen in this country instead of travelling.
That's all that's being asked.

njs030

end of the road wrote: »

just because other western countries think something doesn't make them right.

All the other countries are wrong.

The UN is wrong.

The politicians are wrong.

The people who want to repeal are wrong.

ForestFire

notjustsweet wrote: »

I have no problem having an open and informed debate but you've missed the point entirely. There's simply no need try and pull on people's emotions by using scan photos. We all know and understand the basics of reproduction and anyone who wants to see them can probably use Google given we're on the Internet.

It's the same kind of emotive language that eotr is employing with "murder" and "killing" when actually all that's being asked is to let people make their own choices.

Can women be allowed to make their own choices and have that happen in this country instead of travelling.
That's all that's being asked.

Like it or not we are voting on a life and death issue (Even if that means where life starts)

-You want to remove Religion...fair enough (Although I would say, a significant portion of the people will be considering this whether we like it or not)
-You want to remove emotions..I'm sorry this whole decision is emotive and to the basics of many people morals.

-You don't want to show the only scientific images we have of what exactly we are talking about

You only want to talk about travel?? Is that all you see this referendum about?

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

i won't be revisiting it. i have researched enough to be happy with the conclusion i have come to.

And that of course is your perogrative - however it does not make those opinons applicable to those who have suffered as a result of the existing draconian and backward legislation which have resulted in direct harm to many many women.

just because other western countries think something doesn't make them right.

What makes Irish society such an outlier in denying rights to women - what is the psyche of this country that results in this and then tries to ignore it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/9679840/Pregnant-woman-dies-in-Ireland-after-being-denied-an-abortion.html

And yes Savita deserves to be remembered...

njs030

ForestFire wrote: »

Like it or not we are voting on a life and death issue (Even if that means where life starts)

-You want to remove Religion...fair enough (Although I would say, a significant portion of the people will be considering this whether we like it or not)
-You want to remove emotions..I'm sorry this whole decision is emotive and to the basics of many people morals.

-You don't want to show the only scientific images we have of what exactly we are talking about

You only want to talk about travel?? Is that all you see this referendum about?

Wow. Not sure if you've misunderstood, deliberately manipulated what I said to sound completely different or you think all female posters have a hive mind.

ForestFire

notjustsweet wrote: »

Wow. Not sure if you've misunderstood, deliberately manipulated what I said to sound completely different or you think all female posters have a hive mind.

I only responded to what you wrote.

I don't remember saying anything about all female poster, I don't even know which posters are female.