The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).

The state pays for the procedure.

The procedure is open to all women on request.

The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.

The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.

If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

I think it would be excellent and would support it 100%.

Loafing Oaf

Grayson wrote: »

two things.

The question about whether or not an embryo or foetus is alive doesn't matter. What counts is whether or not it counts as a human being / person.

And that is ultimately a philosophical/ethical question rather than a scientific one, IMO.

NuMarvel

Brendan Eager Stud wrote: »

Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?

Unenumerated rights is a recognised concept in law, and refers to rights that aren't set out in writing, but that can be inferred. Examples in Irish case law would be the right to bodily integrity (Ryan v AG) and marital privacy (McGee v AG).

In a relevant ECHR example, Ireland was found to be in breach of Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life, by not legislating for the X Case (ABC v Ireland).

What's more, constitutions and human rights treaties aren't meant to be the totality of rights, just the fundamentals that everyone must have. It is possible, and indeed commonplace, for someone to have more rights than those set out in a constitution or the like.

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, and it is a genetically separate individual

Nope, it's definitely not alive. At least, by the scientific definition of alive. It also cannot respond to touch, pain etc. until week 28 and at week 12 is the first time there is any real sign of brain activity that could constitute any form of "life" in a non-scientific term. It's a genetically separate organism, not an individual. Individual implies it is independent of others. It's not

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?

That won't happen though. That argument is extremely naive. Hell, we already have a lot of development going into artificial wombs, in the case that in late term (post 24 weeks) complications, both the mother and fetus can be saved (or at least have a shot of saving the fetus). We will never get to a point in which a 4 week old fetus could be transferred to an artifical womb and develop. It requires a mother's womb for that to happen.

If a bacteria was found on Mars tomorrow, the headlines in the scientific magazines would read "Life found on Mars".

Yeah, because bacteria meet all 7 conditions for life? Like, the two arguments are not the same. A bacteria is life as it meets all 7 conditions, a 12 week old fetus does not.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).

The state pays for the procedure.

The procedure is open to all women on request.

The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.

The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.

If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

Well, seeing as how that incubator can never exist, your hypothetical situation doesn't have to be answered. Saved everyone a lot of time.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I think it would be excellent and would support it 100%.

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

david75

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).

The state pays for the procedure.

The procedure is open to all women on request.

The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.

The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.

If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

You’re living in a fantastical world far ahead of us for any of that but the most problematic is you then have to have massive homes / orphanages to raise 4K~ babies a year and good luck finding homes for that many babies each year. It just wouldn’t happen.
You would also need a whole new govt organisation with thousands of staff to both raise the infants in the mean time and thousands more to deal with background checks for potential parents.
We don’t do adoption in Ireland at all.

blanch152, I have never heard such a case of semantics in all my life.

You claim that no person’s right can trump another person’s right, but on occasion one person’s right can supercede another person’s right!

Incredible!

pleas advice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

A bacteria is life as it meets all 7 conditions, a 12 week old fetus does not.

does any child under the age of 8? ie the ability to reproduce?

I have a question for all the pro-choice people:

Is it a woman’s right to choose to have a late-term abortion?

At, say, 30 weeks.

Or should society intervene and stop that?

[Deleted User]

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

You're missing the point. If a woman goes not want to be pregnant, her only option is abortion.
If in a fantastical world where your magic incubator exists, then women could be not pregnant a different way.
Now, the only option termination

ohnonotgmail

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.

you are in absolutely no position to lecture others on bad taste.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

No. And once again your lack of maternity care knowledge is shining through.
In your hypothetical situation, she wouldn’t be waiting 4 weeks for a start.
If a woman is 4 weeks pregnant, it means she missed her period that DAY and just found out she was pregnant.
No waiting, no hanging around, straight into the incubator with the pregnancy that she doesn’t want.

Do you think it’s reasonable to make a woman carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want for 6 and a half months? Babies born at 26 weeks still suffer a lot of health problems and are considered extremely premature.
Viable does not equal a healthy baby.
It’s in no ones best interests to use her as a human incubator, making her suffer 6 months of pregnancy and the prematurity issues for the baby.

It just shows and proves once again that you see women as vessels. Women are not human incubators.
They are people with feelings.
I should have known you’d have another bizarre analogy up your sleeve when you made your initial unrealistic ‘proposal’.

NuMarvel

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but here's what RTE is reporting as the government's proposed wording for the replacement of Article 40.3.3:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies".

The final draft will be approved by the Dáil and Seanad, but I can't see it being changed much, if at all,

ohnonotgmail

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but here's what RTE is reporting as the government's proposed wording for the replacement of Article 40.3.3:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies".

The final draft will be approved by the Dáil and Seanad, but I can't see it being changed much, if at all,

That wording works for me

pleas advice wrote: »

does any child under the age of 8? ie the ability to reproduce?

But they still have what is required to reproduce. Your argument is flawed.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have a question for all the pro-choice people:

Is it a woman’s right to choose to have a late-term abortion?

At, say, 30 weeks.

Or should society intervene and stop that?

Totally irrelevant to what we are being asked to vote on....

Why would any woman wait until 30 weeks to have an abortion? What kind of scenario do you envisage where that would happen?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Do you think it’s reasonable to make a woman carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want for 6 and a half months?

I do actually. As I’ve previously stated, I believe that abortion should only be permitted in medical cases or in cases of rape or incest (subject to the victim satisfying a Rape Committee that she was raped). Thereafter, I believe that women who travel overseas for abortions should be criminalised in a manner similar to the way that sex tourists are subjected to the laws of their own country. A woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. However, in rape cases, the woman’s bodily integrity has been compromised, so abortion is justified. Do we, hand on heart, want a society like the UK’s where 1 in 5 of all pregnancies end in abortion? That is Romanesque society destroying itself. This referendum represents a turning point for Irish society; do we want to cherish life or do we wish to let women’s misguided attempts to be “free” destroy the fabric of our society?

eviltwin wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have a question for all the pro-choice people:

Is it a woman’s right to choose to have a late-term abortion?

At, say, 30 weeks.

Or should society intervene and stop that?

Totally irrelevant to what we are being asked to vote on....

Why would any woman wait until 30 weeks to have an abortion? What kind of scenario do you envisage where that would happen?

Indulge me; should the woman’s right to choose permit her to have a late-term abortion?

2wsxcde3

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are in absolutely no position to lecture others on bad taste.

I know, but i'm trying to improve.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I should have known you’d have another bizarre analogy up your sleeve when you made your initial unrealistic ‘proposal’.

Its not completely unrealistic. Scientists have been working on this proposal for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus . Its not beyond possibility that this could be engineered to work at 8 weeks or so of pregnancy in the future. Not that i like the idea though. It just seems, from a theoretical point of view, about as best a compromise idea as could ever be posited between a pro-life and pro-choice sides that are bitterly opposed.

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Indulge me; should the woman’s right to choose permit her to have a late-term abortion?

I support a woman's right to a termination of pregnancy at any stage.

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

Its great, repeal the eighth and campaign for that, after all the govt will have the right to legislate for that if the referendum is passed!

It's theoretical so not exactly an option...

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So if the woman can wait to 4 weeks for this happen, can she not wait until 26 weeks and the baby be transferred to live outside the woman in an incubator that does exist at the moment?

4 weeks, a woman will not suffer from a single consequence from the pregnancy. 26 weeks is half a year, a pregnancy will physically and psychologically affect a woman who does not wish to remain pregnant during this time.

eviltwin wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Indulge me; should the woman’s right to choose permit her to have a late-term abortion?

I support a woman's right to a termination of pregnancy at any stage.

That is a truly shocking view to hold. I get the 12 week thing to a degree, but I find the views of people who support late-term abortion disgusting.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I do actually. As I’ve previously stated, I believe that abortion should only be permitted in medical cases or in cases of rape or incest (subject to the victim satisfying a Rape Committee that she was raped). Thereafter, I believe that women who travel overseas for abortions should be criminalised in a manner similar to the way that sex tourists are subjected to the laws of their own country. A woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life. However, in rape cases, the woman’s bodily integrity has been compromised, so abortion is justified. Do we, hand on heart, want a society like the UK’s where 1 in 5 of all pregnancies end in abortion? That is Romanesque society destroying itself. This referendum represents a turning point for Irish society; do we want to cherish life or do we wish to let women’s misguided attempts to be “free” destroy the fabric of our society?

I asked you this once already and you didn’t reply.

Can you please tell me what qualifies a 10 week old zygote to be more important than my health and wellbeing?
And can you please tell me why you should get to inflect that view on my life, when if something happened to me, you would know no different, and it would be my family who would suffer the loss?
Why is your judgment more important than mine?

Roughly 4K Irish abortions are happening every year in the UK anyway. Irish abortions are happening, just not in Ireland.
You can’t proudly say there is no abortion in Ireland when the statistics glaringly say Irish women are procuring abortions on a daily basis.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I know, but i'm trying to improve.

Its not completely unrealistic. Scientists have been working on this proposal for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus . Its not beyond possibility that this could be engineered to work at 8 weeks or so of pregnancy in the future. Not that i like the idea though. It just seems, from a theoretical point of view, about as best a compromise idea as could ever be posited between a pro-life and pro-choice sides that are bitterly opposed.

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

But it is beyond the realms of possibility I'm afraid. The reason that it would be technically possible to place a fetus in an artificial womb after 24 weeks is due to most of their organ and other vital structures have already formed and they just need more time to get some little things in place, like more neuron connections, nerves etc.

You could not take a 8 week fetus from a women's womb and pop it into an artificial womb and it would survive. It's just not scientifically possible.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a truly shocking view to hold. I get the 12 week thing to a degree, but I find the views of people who support late-term abortion disgusting.

I said termination of pregnancy. I didn't mention abortion

2wsxcde3

eviltwin wrote: »

I support a woman's right to a termination of pregnancy at any stage.

So you think its ok to kill a baby at 8 or 9 months gestation right before it is about to be born? The baby can live outside the woman at that stage completely independently. It no longer needs the woman at the stage ...so why the need to kill it? Its going to come out one way or the other at that stage but you seem to be saying its ok to kill it right before it comes out.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I know, but i'm trying to improve.

Its not completely unrealistic. Scientists have been working on this proposal for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus . Its not beyond possibility that this could be engineered to work at 8 weeks or so of pregnancy in the future. Not that i like the idea though. It just seems, from a theoretical point of view, about as best a compromise idea as could ever be posited between a pro-life and pro-choice sides that are bitterly opposed.

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

There was no problem with your initial proposal. If such a device could be produced, it would be amazing.
The offensive bit was the part that followed where you likened women to human incubators.

You seem to have a bizarre notion that Pro-Choice people are raving mental murdering lunatics out for the blood of innocents.
You couldn’t be more wrong. And to suggest so is both very misguided and manipulative.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a truly shocking view to hold. I get the 12 week thing to a degree, but I find the views of people who support late-term abortion disgusting.

And I find the views of people who think that, in order to get an abortion for rape, the women should have to go in front of a committee and prove she was raped disgusting. It doesn't make it disgusting.

I don't agree with abortions past 24 weeks. That would be my limit and if Ireland tried to bring in abortion on demand to term, I would heavily protest that. But I think 12, or 24, weeks is fine as the fetus is still less likely to survive outside the womb (and at 12 weeks it has no chance)

pleas advice

eviltwin wrote: »

Why would any woman wait until 30 weeks to have an abortion? What kind of scenario do you envisage where that would happen?

where she no longer finds herself in a position to look after the child, where if she had've been that position five months earlier, she would have had an abortion then.