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; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

How is that good for women?

How is treating women like breeding bitches good for women, since that's what you appear to be advocating?

JDD

grahambo wrote: »

I take the citizens assembly with a pinch of salt.
Nearly a third left/withdrew from the process. (how could a third leave on such an important topic?!?)
An additional 7 were hired via a Red C employee.

I've learned not to trust governments, "independent" reports/findings, committee's, assemblys and all the other crap that goes along with it.
There is always someone pulling the strings.

I'm not saying your concerns are well founded, but it's not a completely uncommon view.

Presumably though, if the referendum is passed with the view that the legislation in its current form will be enacted, you will believe that it wasn't just a coincidence that assembly, committee and the majority of the population are of the same view?

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How can a life be disimproved when it never actually truly began?

So much hyperbole.
So little logic.

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?
If that zygote is not a human being then what is it?
Right now in China 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. That’s a lot of women who aren’t here because of abortion.
How is that good for women?

baylah17

grahambo wrote: »

I take the citizens assembly with a pinch of salt.
Nearly a third left/withdrew from the process. (how could a third leave on such an important topic?!?)
An additional 7 were hired via a Red C employee.

I've learned not to trust governments, "independent" reports/findings, committee's, assemblys and all the other crap that goes along with it.
There is always someone pulling the strings.

Incorrect, none of those involved in the discussions on the 8th were hired by the Red C employee who hand picked members, that happened AFTER the CA had already dealth with the 8th.

Beta Ray Bill

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the reasons are in the report.

Which I'm sure you have read, right?

I take the citizens assembly with a pinch of salt.
Nearly a third left/withdrew from the process. (how could a third leave on such an important topic?!?)
An additional 7 were hired via a Red C employee.

I've learned not to trust governments, "independent" reports/findings, committee's, assemblys and all the other crap that goes along with it.
There is always someone pulling the strings.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.
It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born.
Millions of them.
I’ll give you a chance there to tell me how that’s just not true.

That post is just sad, pure emotional hyperbole, all that is missing is the violins in the background.
If thats the best that the anti-choice can offer then they should quit now!

captbarnacles

January wrote: »

We don't have to come up with an excuse because we don't believe that it is killing anything. Killing is taking a life, a fetus isn't a life it has the potential to become a life. We simply believe that a woman's choice to either continue or end the pregnancy be her own and nobody but her should be able to make that decision.

So you can keep shouting all you like about the right to life of the unborn but the supreme Court has ruled that outside of the 8th the unborn has no other rights and the government are currently bringing forward as referendum to Repeal that amendment. If its repealed a woman will have choice which is a huge step forward in this country and if its not repealed then sure we will shout louder and hopefully it won't take another 30 odd years before a government has the balls to tackle the issue again.

None of the pro-lifers believe it either. Picture this: Irish women are ordering pills online to kill born Irish children and mothers are taking born Irish children to England where they can be killed and the response of the pro-lifers is to shrug their shoulders and say "can't do anything about that". Get out. They'd be picketing airports and ferryports, demanding we cease all diplomatic and trade ties with England and staging hunger strikes on O'Connell street. Every normal persons response would be extreme.

This is all absurd of course. They do not in any way, shape or form believe the unborn are a full human life.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.

You cast a wide net there. So wide that it can easily be answered with the more Obvious examples. Women who have been impregnated by rape can use abortion to have the option to not gestate and produce the spawn of the monster who committed that horrific violence against them for example. Women who feel that the presence of that fetus inside them feels like they are being raped again and again every second of every day.

In a medical context the ability to abort has saved lives in scenarios where the doctor(s) involved have ascertained that the fetus, the mother, or both will simply not survive the process. So there are women alive today that without the ability to terminate the pregnancy they had would simply not be alive today and their resulting fetus or child would either be dead too, or born without one or more of it's parents.

In a socio-economic context it gives women the change to continue on their life path, career choices, educational choices, and so forth by terminating a pregnancy that would eventually result in a child that would curtail, derange, even entirely preclude them their dreams and ambitions.

This is all measurable in the well being of actual sentient entities, the women who have used abortion. To contrast with that you appear to hold up the imaginary well being of entities that do not exist but you assume would have otherwise. So I am not sure you compare like with like by comparing the well being of actual people with the well being of people who never came to exist.

In other words when you say "It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born." you can not "disimprove" the quality of a life that never existed. It would be like taking an empty glass and turning it upside down in the attempt to make it even more empty of water. It just does not parse as anything but nonsense.

Giving women autonomy over their own reproductive processes also ensures the mutual benefit for mother and child than when a woman choose to produce an actual person they do so when THEY want to and when THEY feel they can provide the best future and life for the child they create. So this benefits not just those women, but the very real (as opposed to your imaginary) women (and men) they go on to produce.

The list goes on and I could write 10 more posts this length, but since your question was so wide reaching and containing such a low threshold, I feel this is many times more than is required to answer what you actually asked.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.
It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born.
Millions of them.
I’ll give you a chance there to tell me how that’s just not true.

How can a life be disimproved when it never actually truly began?

So much hyperbole.
So little logic.

splinter65

....... wrote: »

So because of your failure to see whats patently obvious, all women in Ireland should suffer under the 8th?

What makes you the judge and jury on whether or not abortion has improved the lives of women anywhere in the world? You could look at my life and think its not great, but I like it and as I live it - my opinion is really the only one that matters regarding it.

However, given your abject failure to see how abortion has improved the lives of women, please do elucidate and tell us exactly where and how it has dis-improved the lives of women. Something must be informing your opinion, so share this evidence with the rest of us?

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.
It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born.
Millions of them.
I’ll give you a chance there to tell me how that’s just not true.

splinter65

grahambo wrote: »

Here's an interesting thing:
Despite me saying that I am Pro-Choice, All posts have been argued against by other Pro-Choicers
#9453 zedhead
#9450 swampgas
#9429 swampgas
#9466 pilly
#9468 pilly

I talked with my mother about the Referendum and she feels there should be abortion.
She's never steered me wrong so that's what I'll be voting for.

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers.
IE if you're not with us you're against us.
Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

I think you are correct on that.
And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.
It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own.
Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

You could be right there.

robarmstrong

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

A nuisance, really?

As someone who's suffered miscarriages with my current partner I feel that I'm clued in enough to weigh in on this debate. I don't believe in abortion, I'm fully against it, nothing can ever change my mind on it.

However my baby girl is due in July and I want to give her the right that so many women in Ireland were chased out of the country for. I'm not having her shamed out of her own place of birth because of cretins with out-dated ideologies full of hypocrisy at every turn.

Are you trying to tell me that if (hopefully this never happens) you have a daughter who unfortunately due to circumstances out of her control falls pregnant (due to any amount of reasons!) and cannot go through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't still love and support her? Or would you force her to keep the baby because ah sure look she can just give it up for adoption!!

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

grahambo wrote: »

And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.

Yes, the reasons are in the report.

Which I'm sure you have read, right?

NuMarvel

grahambo wrote: »

I think you are correct on that.
And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.
It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own.
Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

Whether the proposed timeframe was 12, 10, or even 8 weeks, the anti-repeal side would be saying the same things. In fact, 10 or 8 weeks give them another argument because they'd claim the government was intentionally using a shorter timeframe to make sure the referendum passed and it would be increased soon afterwards.

By going with 12 weeks, they're a) using a timeframe first recommended by the Citizens Assembly, i.e. non-politicians, b) using the timeframe that's most common throughout Europe, and c) being clear about what the timeframe will be for the foreseeable future.

I can appreciate why people might have reservations about the 12 week timeframe. But the only realistic alternative is the status quo, which nearly nobody supports in its own right. This or future governments aren't going to be in any rush to hold another referendum, which means women will continue to travel for abortions or have illegal abortions here; the majority of which will be within the first 12 weeks anyway.

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

I still only have a copy of the homosexual agenda from last time, where do I get my new agenda?

nozzferrahhtoo

grahambo wrote: »

Despite me saying that I am Pro-Choice, All posts have been argued against by other Pro-Choicers

I would not view every interaction with you as arguing against you though. Rather people see in what you have been saying the seeds of the arguments that tend to blossom into the anti choice arguments. And so they wish to pre-empt that for you.

Also you genuinely seem concerned about certain things, and arguing that there is no reason to be concerned about those things, is not an argument against YOU. It is an attempt to alleviate you of that suffering of doubt.

For example in your first post on the thread this week you expressed a concern that abortion would become a mainstream form of birth control. We are not arguing against YOU to point out this is tosh. We are attempting to alleviate you of that concern. The number of women who seek more than one abortion is statistically low. The number doing so multiple times to a significant degree is a statistical non-entity.

This is not an argument against you, I repeat. It is merely a statement to show you that the concern you appear to hold, likely for some good and well meant reasons coupled with some bad ones (your apparent low opinion of the Irish being one of them), is simply not a valid concern.

Further when we look around the world at abortion, in a multitude of countries, we see that there is generally an overarching responsibility with it's use. The vast near total majority of women are not having it multiple times. The vast near total majority of women are having their abortions in or before week 12.

Your concerns seem to be simply invalid therefore. But the source of some of the more strident replies to your concerns probably also lies in those concerns being expressed also by people who are ENTIRELY anti choice on abortion. So they simply respond to the same concerns, the same way, blind to the source of the concern itself.

grahambo wrote: »

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers. IE if you're not with us you're against us. Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

I agree with you mostly here but it is worth pointing out that there does seem to be valid reasoning for what you observe. We do seem to have a kind of pattern here of people who SEEM to be trying to "poe" the pro choice position. That is by coming here pretending to be pro choice and either then:

1) Arguing that position remarkably badly, crassly or horrifically..... such as one user who has SUDDENLY become anti choice when the referendum was announced but for months before that was espousing disgusting extremist pro-choice positions that we should be able to off the baby at ANY point in the pregnancy (even in the week of due birth) and claiming that babies have no rights AT ALL until they travel the length of the birth canal.

2) Espousing one single reason for being pro-repeal but then offering nothing but arguments AGAINST that reason. For example the user who claims to be voting for it purely for the health benefits to women, but then goes around threads posting suggestive links to "Maternal deaths per country per 100,000 live births" and claiming that since countries without the 8th have the same Maternal Death Rates as our country WITH the 8th, the 8th must be having no real effect in the first place.

And those people often try to portray this image of someone deeply struggling with the issue and really trying to decide what is right, before making it damn clear to us that have long decided on this and are just acting.

So it is very likely people are taking you up wrong, and you rightly feel badly done by for this. But recognize too there is precedent here that you are the victim of, and not merely an "us against them" narrative of hate. And it is unfortunate if/when someone who really is being genuine fits the form mold of those who blatantly are not.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

the pro choice side , all they are concerned of is the rights and dignity of women

There, fixed your post so that it more accurately describes those that your childish bile was aimed at.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

You are argument is a fallacy as there is no excuse needed for a woman to have the right to regulate her own body and the idea that women having such a right is "inexcusable" says a lot about your view of women!

Ave Sodalis

grahambo wrote:

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers. IE if you're not with us you're against us. Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

I think this is more to do with the many people (both reregs and long term posters) coming onto the thread claimimg to be pro-choice but doing nothing but arguing against pro-choice, whilst not picking up on any of the pro-life stances. It gets a bit repetitive after a while so it's probably not surprising that posters stop believing people.

grahambo wrote:

I think you are correct on that. And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks. It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own. Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

If it was 10 weeks, people would be saying that pro-life would have a better chance of winning than it would be at 8 weeks, and so on.

Beta Ray Bill

pilly wrote: »

Here we go, another one.

pilly wrote: »

No another one pretending to be pro choice but doing nothing but throw in anti choice arguments.

Seems to be a regular tactic now. Don't know why anyone would think it will work but there go. Desperate times I suppose call for desperate measures.

Here's an interesting thing:
Despite me saying that I am Pro-Choice, All posts have been argued against by other Pro-Choicers
#9453 zedhead
#9450 swampgas
#9429 swampgas
#9466 pilly
#9468 pilly

I talked with my mother about the Referendum and she feels there should be abortion.
She's never steered me wrong so that's what I'll be voting for.

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers.
IE if you're not with us you're against us.
Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the 12 weeks that’s going to save the 8th.

I think you are correct on that.
And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.
It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own.
Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

Hannibal_Smith

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

There is no need to think of an excuse. Instead, there are explanations and reasoning.

Pushing what agenda? The right of the woman to chose what happens to her body is being discussed. More of it I say!

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the 12 weeks that’s going to save the 8th.

So, you don't think voters will be convinced to keep the 8th on its own merits. On that I think nearly everyone can agree.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable

Well you see we live in a society based on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". What that means is that something is not "inexcusable" just because you personally shout that word at it.

It is you have "has yet to come up with an" argument as to what the moral and ethical issues are with the termination of a 12 week old fetus. You simply screech words like "unborn" at it in the hope people will accept your position as default, and when that fails you simply start threads on how the liberal agenda is victimizing you.

Ismisejack wrote: »

So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!!

I have been active on this thread since the first post. I do not know how many people have read EVERY post on this thread, but I have. And not one single post on this thread that I can recall has anyone pretending the unborn does not exist. Perhaps you could cite the posts I have forgotten? Or are you simply making stuff up again?

What I have seen however is a multitude of posts that do not buy into the concepts of what YOU think the unborn is, and what moral and ethical implications it's existence has on us.

Ismisejack wrote: »

they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn

The issue there is that you have not offered a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning on the subject of why a 12 week old fetus should have any rights at all. It is no, as you simply pretend here, that we do not CARE about those rights. We just do not see them as being there TO care about in the first place.

Until you show THAT then you might as well invent an imaginary friend and ask us why we do not love him.

nice_guy80

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

so you see a foetus in a woman's womb as a nuisance? nice
how are your attitudes towards women generally

the pro life default position always seems to be.... MURDER!

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Did you ever think of applying for a job as a miscarriage Councillor? I m sure you'd be a big hit.

Perhaps you have not been reading my posts all that closely, but did I not already mention in at least three posts that I have actually worked with women on that very thing?

But seriously given the amount of posts and questions from me you have simply outright dodged and ignored.... what favors do you think you are doing with this snidery?

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

We don't have to come up with an excuse because we don't believe that it is killing anything. Killing is taking a life, a fetus isn't a life it has the potential to become a life. We simply believe that a woman's choice to either continue or end the pregnancy be her own and nobody but her should be able to make that decision.

So you can keep shouting all you like about the right to life of the unborn but the supreme Court has ruled that outside of the 8th the unborn has no other rights and the government are currently bringing forward as referendum to Repeal that amendment. If its repealed a woman will have choice which is a huge step forward in this country and if its not repealed then sure we will shout louder and hopefully it won't take another 30 odd years before a government has the balls to tackle the issue again.

Ismisejack

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well because one is accurate and the other is not, that is why. In the context of abortion you ARE anti choice. However I am not "pro abortion". As I said in the post you seemingly decided to ignore..... people on BOTH sides of this issue want little or no abortions to be happening ideally. That is the opposite of pro abortion.

So no you are not fighting fire with fire. You are flailing at an accurate term with an inaccurate one. A difference worth learning.

Except again in the post you seemingly have decided to duck, dodge, and ignore I told you how the OPPOSITE is in fact true and I not only know what it superficially looks like, but I know all the intricate details of the entire gestation process.

I wonder if part of the reason you have decided to ignore and dodge my post is that I do not fit the straw man mould of a pro-choice voter that you have invented in your own imagination.

Or is it that you can not answer the questions I asked about that fetus, and what aspect of it you feel should be triggering our moral and ethical concerns about it's supposed right to life?

Except no contraception, even multiple ones, "ensure" any such thing. Each contraception, especially used in combination, cause massive decreases in the % probability of becoming pregnant. But even combining the pill with condoms for example does NOT push that % to zero.

That is a crass distortion of the reality of the pro choice narrative I am afraid. The reality is that pro-choice people, myself included, campaign for contraception use, cheaper and better access to it, and more education about it. But again you would know that if you had not decided to simply ignore my last post.

No abortion is not "the answer" to "effort". Abortion is a CHOICE people can make when, despite the effort, women find themselves pregnant against their will. And choice is all it is or is being sold as by anyone except YOUR ilk with phrases like "pro abortion" that pretend otherwise.

And how many people do you think are having sex? How many times do you think they do it? "Close to 100%" means not 100%. What is it then? 99%?

1% of a large number is still a large number. Even a 99% effective contraception regime will STILL result in many unplanned and often unwanted pregnancies.

Do the math.

And yet I did NONE of that myself and what did you do? You simply dodged and ignored my post. Which tells me you simply see what you want to see, and pick up on only the posts and posters you imagine fit the profile you have invented. Ignore those who do not fit it, because they will not fill out your agenda and profiling.

"To me" being the important words in that sentence, because what you certainly have not done is offered a single piece of argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to establish a 12 week gestated fetus as a "person". So "To me it is a person" means nothing more to me than "To me Elvis is still alive". Fantasy is as fantasy does.

Now if you want to actually present any of the above as part of debate rather than preaching I am more than all ears.

Glad you asked. There is no reason in science or philosophy on offer to "care" (or as I put it, to have moral and ethical concern for) an entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

The fetus when it is generally aborted (the near totality of choice based abortions happen before week 16 almost consistently in EVERY country that has choice based abortion) not just slightly, but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness and sentience. In fact it also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it too.

What point do we, or at least should we, start to care about it? At the point when ANY significant level of doubt comes into play that that faculty may have formed.

Spoiler alert: There is not a shred of concern at 0-16 weeks.

It is alive. It is human. In taxonomy. It is not a Human Person. And it has no attributes upon which to afford it moral and ethical concern. And this is demonstrable because all the attributes you just listed ALSO exist in other "Life" we kill all the time.

The last burger you or someone you know ate? Yep it had a heartbeat, response to stimulus, limbs, brain synapses and the whole lot. And yet to happily kill it by the millions. That last anti bacterial you took? Yes even a bacteria can respond to stimulus.

So when you write "I think I have caught you lot out on this point" the reality is you have caught YOURSELF out. Because you have just listed a string of attributes that DEMONSTRABLY do not mediate a "right to life" in our general ethics and morality.

So having shot yourself in the foot, limp over to the armchair and sit down and listen to the simple next step in that mental process. Ask yourself if those attributes DO NOT mediate our moral and ethical concerns, what attributes actually do.

And you will then, like me, likely find that the answer you come up with for that question is PRECISELY the attributes the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just partially lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks.

And having had that revelation you will then suddenly, and completely, understand one clear and concise pro choice position. Yay you!

But if you need further introspection on the matter then have a little thought experiment. Imagine our technology..... and there are people who believe we are not too many generations from this...... reaches the point that we can map your consciousness into a computer and keep you alive after your body is dead. Imagine then I do this and install your consciousness into the equivalent of a toaster. No limbs. No heart beat. No flesh and blood. Just silicon and software.

Should I be allowed torture you, kill you, or have my way with you because you have NONE of the attributes you just listed a 12 week old fetus having. OR would your awareness sitting inside this toaster like box have something to which I should show moral and ethical concern. If so..... why do you think that is. What does that toaster have that should concern me? And do you notice your answer to that question is PERCISELY what the fetus does not have, never has had, and is a way off having.

We turn life support off all the time. So I am not sure what your point here is. In fact I am not even convinced at this moment that YOU know what your point here is.

But the distinction you are missing here is that a coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness and sentience. It might not be operating entirely, but it still has it. This is distinct from the fetus which A) Does not have it and Never has had it.

Did you ever think of applying for a job as a miscarriage Councillor?
I m sure you'd be a big hit.