Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Great. And the main way to face your responsibilities is to evaluate all your choices at a given time, and choose the best one for all concerned.

And we as a society should provide as many such choices as possible unless there is good reason not to provide it/them.

And what we see on every thread on abortion across boards.ie is that no one is coming up with any arguments as to why we should NOT be providing abortion by choice for women in the early stages of pregnancy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except no it is not. Not making the choice YOU might make is not shirking responsibilities. People will make different choices to your own all the time.

It simply is not what it means to take responsibility.

What taking responsibility DOES mean, as I said in the opening of this post, is openly and honesty informing yourself of, and considering, all the options available to you. And moving forward with the one YOU deem to be the best one for YOU.

THAT is what it means to take responsibility in this world.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think "resembling a person" has anything to do with it really. You are making that up. For example Dolphins do not resemble people all that much. Yet people would find it much harder to kill one needlessly than, say, stepping on an any or shooting a bird out of the air.

Why? Because whether they realize it or not most people mediate their moral and ethical concern based on an entities capacity for sentience. And this has nothing to do with what they "resemble".

If I invented a fully sentient Artificial Intelligence tomorrow and installed it in a toaster, I would not be morally able to bring myself to destroy that toaster. Nothing to do with what it resembles, and everything to do with what it ACTUALLY IS.

The reason I have no moral and ethical qualms with the termination of the life of a fetus is similarly because I know what it actually is. It is a non-sentient (in any way) biological entity and nothing more. It has nothing to be ethically concerned for. And what it resembles, with little toes or fingers or a tongue that flaps about, has literally nothing to do with it for me. Nor am I seeing any reason why it might or should.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That "should" is one mighty assertion that you have not deigned to support or substantiate in any way however.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except quite the opposite is true. We have not lost our notions of the importance of life. Rather as our understanding of life, and our medical and scientific ability to affect it and even create it has increased........ we have instead REFINED our understanding of it. And with that we have refined what life is more important and what is less, and why.

We have come to understand not just when and why Human life is important, but that the attributes that mediate that importance are PRECISELY the attributes that a fetus from 0-16 weeks gestation lacks entirely.

And while such facts might not gel with the assertions you appear to want to make, I am not sure anyone really is likely to care. As fact, even inconvenient ones, tend to remain facts.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you've decided that human life isn't important before implantation? You don't think that a blastocyst is deserving of its human rights until it has hatched from its zona pellucida?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I suppose the good thing is that this suggests they will give up after this referendum passes and claim 12 weeks was always their idea, falling back to defend against 16 or 20 weeks.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They gave up on travel, information, suicide, life begins at conception...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Each time, they give up and pretend they're cool with the new normal.

So after they're lose this one, the pattern says they're give up and start arguing 10 vs 12 weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again it appears you have opted to not reply to me when I write to you, but to reply to me when I write to someone else instead. It is becoming quite the pattern.



Well no, you really have not. What you have come up with in conversations with me (at least the ones you have not simply jumped ship from and left) is a single solitary ASSERTION that you refuse to back up in any way. Which is that non-sentient things that could potentially become sentient have a right to become sentient.

That is literally the sole solitary rebuttal you have managed to muster against me. And it is entirely made up, asserted, and not supported by any reason or argument.



To you. But aside from assertion it to be irresponsible you have not actually shown it to be so. This approach of "Argument from assertion" is really intellectually bankrupt alas.

But like it or not the very definition of responsibility, and taking responsibility for a situation in which one finds oneself, is learning all your options and choosing the right one based on all the available arguments. That is what it means to be responsible. That is what it means to be an adult. And someone does not become irresponsible just because their conclusions from that choice differ from what you would want personally.

What YOU would do is not he yard stick or meter by this responsible and irresponsible should be measured.



And that is exactly what DOES happen, so you are saying "X cant be so or Y would be so" in a situation where Y actually IS so. Take anti bacterial medicine for example. It kills BILLIONS of non-sentient life all the time. Ever written on paper? A non sentient tree was likely killed to make it. Ever eat meat? Animals with sentience deemed to be much less than our own, and so they have no right to life, were happily killed to feed you that meat.

So welcome to the real world where when you write "if it was then anyone or anything could be killed without reason and without consiquence just because they aren't sentient" you do so in a world where anything CAN be killed, and very very very often IS killed, without reason and without consequence since they aren't sentient.

So you have not rebutted my position, you have just proved my point for me. Well done you.



What would not be real about it? Sentience is sentience. Just because that sentience is running on a silicon substrate rather than a meat based one, does not magically confer moral uniqueness on it. There is nothing inherently special about meat that makes sentience running on that platform special. Carbon is no more special than silicon. And if we met a silicon based life form from another planet (which has oft been postulated in biology as it happens) it's sentience would be every bit as valid as ours.

It is solely another of your empty and not actually argued assumptions and assertions that there would be any difference. What EXACTLY would not be real about it????



There is nothing up to and including week 12 going on in a fetus that links with sentience. The simply fact is it is NOT sentient at that stage. And not only is it not, but it even lacks the known pre-requisites to be. A common house fly is more sentient than a 12 week fetus. And people happily kill them ALL the time. Many of them were probably killed by humans in the time it took me to write this post.



Except you are straw manning now as I have never brought it in as an argument of last resort because other arguments have failed. It has always been, and continues to be, the FIRST and pretty much ONLY argument I have brought in. I have never brought any in that have not stacked up before it. So you are simply not being honest here. Again.

But there is nothing about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. Your argument is circular. You want it to have rights because it is human. You want "human" to be important because you want it to have rights. The perfect circle. But there is a reason circular arguments are considered on the list of fallacies.

The simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, especially in a way much flora and fauna does not, that results in a list of attributes. And the attributes on that list are EXACTLY the attributes the fetus lacks.



No. I really have not. Least of all from you. You have thrown a few assertions at me on the subject in the past. But pretty much every time I rebutted those assertions you simply dropped out of the conversation entirely and ignored the posts..... waited a few days..... then popped back up repeating the assertions rebutted in the posts you dodged.

NO ONE on this forum has offered an actual argument against the arguments I have put forward about what morality and ethics is, where it comes from, what it is in the business of doing, and to what (and why) we assign it. As I said at the start of this post the only thing you have done is invent, purely by assertion, a concept of "a right to become sentient". But alas any attempts to get you to validate that reasoning have resulted in your instantly heading for the hills and the conversation ending.



Perhaps "some" have but I have not met any such people. If you meet any, then take it up with them. They have nothing to do with me. The rest of us, myself included, however do not simply scream "Human" as if "Human" is by default important. Rather we have refined our philosophy and reasoning on the subject to ask WHAT is it specifically that makes Humans, or any other particular species or life form or entity, important morally or ethically. What attributes, rather than what taxonomy chosen arbitrarily or from hubris alone, actually give a coherent basis for affording moral and ethical concern to an entity.

And a list of such attributes can be coherently offered, discussed, and defended. As I have done, while you have not. And they are, as I say, precisely that attributes the fetus lacks at the relevant stages. As such I see no basis to have moral and ethical concern towards such a fetus at those stages. I see more basis for having concern for the common house fly in fact.



Except you have offered no such understanding. You have merely asserted it. Again. And again. And again. Nothing more. To suggest it is not an assertion but an "understanding" would require you offer the reasoning behind it. Which is precisely what you refuse to do. Every. Single. Time.

Consonata wrote: »

How do you reconcile this with your view that women should not be imprisoned for obtaining an abortion in the UK?

Consonata wrote: »

So why not imprison women who take an abortion pill/attempt to import it into the country. I do not see how you throw up your hands and say "it's impossible to regulate this" when there are clearly methods of doing it, then at the same time say that the position that the irish state is taking is working.

end of the road wrote: »

you would be best asking that question to the government as i don't make the laws or enforce them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You said that in the previous post and I rebutted it. Merely repeating it does not make my rebuttals go away. You have not offered ANY such reasons, let alone plenty, other than the one single reason I mentioned. That of inventing a "right to become sentient" which you asserted in a couple of threads before simply running away from the conversation when it was challenged.

Your entire approach to this conversation has been to ignore rebuttals and then merely instantly repeat the claim that was rebutted.



And yet I DO strive towards such a society and I do not find it to be irresponsible. So the evidence that your "to anyone" comment is simply false is.... well....me.

Your comment is as useless as saying "There is no such thing as people with one armed men" TO a one armed man. You are basically sitting there telling me I do not exist. But I do.



No, you have done no such thing. You have run away from the conversation over multiple threads, and left numerous posts from me unanswered and unchallenged.

But you have not once rebutted my arguments. You have merely asserted their opposite. I present all the arguments as to not just THAT sentience is the core of the argument but WHY it is. And all you ever do is say "No it isn't" and then run away.



See? Same thing again! You just repeated the thing I rebutted. You ignored my counter points. You ignored the questions I asked WHILE making those counter points. And you merely repeat the assertion. Nothing more.

So let me merely repeat the text you ignored/dodged:

What would not be real about it? Sentience is sentience. Just because that sentience is running on a silicon substrate rather than a meat based one, does not magically confer moral uniqueness on it. There is nothing inherently special about meat that makes sentience running on that platform special. Carbon is no more special than silicon. And if we met a silicon based life form from another planet (which has oft been postulated in biology as it happens) it's sentience would be every bit as valid as ours.

It is solely another of your empty and not actually argued assumptions and assertions that there would be any difference. What EXACTLY would not be real about it????



And AGAIN You just repeat what I rebutted without reference to my points or engagement with the discussion. You really do appear to think that repeating the same points over and over again, even when rebutted, is how "debate" works. It is not. So once again let me repeat the bits you ignored:

But there is nothing about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern. Your argument is circular. You want it to have rights because it is human. You want "human" to be important because you want it to have rights. The perfect circle. But there is a reason circular arguments are considered on the list of fallacies.

The simple fact is when you sit down and consider WHY human beings deserve moral and ethical concern, especially in a way much flora and fauna does not, that results in a list of attributes. And the attributes on that list are EXACTLY the attributes the fetus lacks.



A right to life you merely assume it should have. But you have given no reasoning or arguments as to why it should. You merely shout "Human" at the issue over and over without engaging with the conversation being had with you.

Calling it "human" just begs the question and kicks the can down the road without answering the challenge. What attributes specifically make "Humans" worthy of a right to life.

It seems the best answer you can give is "Human have rights because humans have rights" essentially. As I said, circular argument fallacy all the way down.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes EOTR, you are bang on, we are pro choice beceause we are all blood thirsty lunatics whose goal in life is to ‘strive to kill others’.

Jesus wept.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an arbitrary distinction. It's chosen because it justifies the grudging acceptance of the morning-after pill, while still allowing total opposition to abortion. It's nothing more than sophistry.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, you could argue that the 12-week limit is equally arbitrary, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But the difference is that the 12-week limit at least allows a woman a degree of bodily integrity, while the arbitrary declaration of humanity from the moment of implantation is designed specifically to deny her that choice.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's the same blastocyst, but one moment it's a person and the next it's not. That makes no sense to me.

And, you know what: it doesn't have to make sense to me. If that's where you personally want to decide to draw the line between it being OK to kill a blastocyst or not, that's fine.