The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

grahambo wrote: »

To answer both of you.
I think it Repeal will either win or lose with a huge majority to the winning side.
IE: It won't be close.

Back in January, polling indicated 56% Yes, 29% No, 15% Don't Know, which would translate on the day to 65-35 Yes.

But I think it will tighten.

JDD

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes I am against IUDs . My buddy got pregnant twice on an IUD.

What about IVF? (second time asking)

JDD wrote: »

What about IVF? (second time asking)

Don't bother mate, obvious troll is obvious, darts in with an ignorant soundbite, ignores all counters and darts back in with a different soundbite.

Percy Judd

robarmstrong wrote: »

Try something else?

Right answer me this.

You're in a burning building, you can save either a toddler or you can save these zygotes. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

I'll wait while the cogs start turning buddy.

These analogies are stupid. To show the stupidity, attempt to answer my question:

You're in a burning building with your 1 year old son and 4 year old daughter. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus which the pro abortion side want to legalize starving to death with mifepristone and misoprostol.

See your analogy falls flat on its face there considering the 1 and 4 year old are born, they've been through birth.

The fetus haven't.

Got more for me?

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro-choice by the way.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus...

There's no comparison between a 12 week old foetus and an adult woman either.

splinter65 wrote: »

My buddy got pregnant twice on an IUD.

Praise the Lord! More cute little zygotes!

Percy Judd

robarmstrong wrote: »

See your analogy falls flat on its face there considering the 1 and 4 year old are born, they've been through birth.

The fetus haven't.

Got more for me?

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro-choice by the way.

My analogy certainly does not fall on it's face.
So 2 days before a woman gives birth to a full-term baby, has been pregnant over 9 months - can these babies be used in your silly analogies? Or would they need to wait the 2 days to leave the woman to be used in your silly analogies? What point of the pregnancy are they worthy of usage in your silly analogies?

Pro-choice on.. what to have for lunch today? No. Pro choice to have an abortion. Stop hiding behind words in the English language which have nothing to do with abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Percy Judd wrote: »

These analogies are stupid. To show the stupidity, attempt to answer my question: You're in a burning building with your 1 year old son and 4 year old daughter. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

Depends if you want the ethics answer or the practical answer. The practical answer would always be to select the one that is least likely to be able to save themselves. Then the probability of BOTH surviving does up, even if only by a small amount.

The ethics answer is more in tune with the positions on abortion expressed in the posts you have been dodging and ignoring though. Which is that sentience and consciousness maps on to a capacity to suffer. While both the 1 and 4 year old HAVE the faculty, it could be argued that there is a higher functioning level of it in the older child and their capacity to suffer, however small the difference might be, is higher. Therefore it would be more ethical to prevent suffering in the entity more capable of suffering.

Which maps onto the abortion issue in that moral and ethical concern seems to track with the sentience and consciousness capacity of the entity. The fetus being aborted (almost all of them by week 12 of gestation) has ZERO such capacity because it lacks the faculty in question ENTIRELY.

As such there appears to be no basis upon which to hold any moral and ethical concern for it. Or at least if there is a basis, you have ignored any attempts to have you offer it.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus

Anything can be compared if you find an attribute, or lack of attribute, upon which to compare them. I can compare Pineapples with squirrels for example under the comparison "Things that are not purple".

The question then becomes, can a comparison of that sort by made that is relevant in a given context. For example the context here is abortion, and whether the fetus has a right to life.

So yes there is a comparison to be made between a zygote and a fetus in that neither of them even remotely holds the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Stop hiding behind words in the English language which have nothing to do with abortion.

Except language, including the English Language, are contextual constructs. And in a discussion about abortion, and allowing women to have the choice of abortion, the term "pro-choice" has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Less so terms like "pro abortion" as I do not think that generally describes many people on ANY side of the abortion issue.

Percy Judd

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's no comparison between a 12 week old foetus and an adult woman either.

There's no comparison between a 1 year old baby and a 80 year old man.
Likewise a 15 year old girl and a 100 year old woman who has lost her mind.
What's your point?
We have different characteristics as humans (mentally and physically) depending what age we are.
It doesn't justify killing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Percy Judd wrote: »

There's no comparison between a 1 year old baby and a 80 year old man.

Except there are MANY. So not sure you know what you are talking about here at all. There are many points of comparison between them. Some of them relevant to this discussion and some of them not. So....

Percy Judd wrote: »

What's your point?

.... what's yours exactly?

Percy Judd wrote: »

We have different characteristics as humans (mentally and physically) depending what age we are. It doesn't justify killing.

The thing about the word "justify" is it pre-supposes there is something TO justify in the first place. That the action being "justified" is wrong and warrants justification.

As you have failed to offer a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to indict morally or ethically the action of terminating a 12 week old fetus.... there is nothing for anyone here TO justify. Least of all to you.

JDD

Oh Percy, you're back! Great! Now you can answer my questions.

You can too Splinter, while your at it. Plus the one on IVF please.

Now please PLEASE answer these questions and don't just ignore them.

I'm married, 41, and have three kids. If I got pregnant again I would have a 60% chance of getting a condition called placenta accretia. It can be fatal in a very small amount of cases, but it could have permanent serious health problems in a larger amount of cases. It can't be diagnosed with any certainty until you are 34 weeks pregnant.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Second question. Same scenario but disregard the placenta accretia as a risk. Like most women who have been pregnant (and nearly all who have had multiple pregnancies) I have pelvic floor and abdominal weakness issues. I deal with back and hip pain every day. A fourth pregnancy would exacerbate those issues and I would have to deal with them long after the pregnancy has finished.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Percy Judd wrote: »

My analogy certainly does not fall on it's face.
So 2 days before a woman gives birth to a full-term baby, has been pregnant over 9 months - can these babies be used in your silly analogies? Or would they need to wait the 2 days to leave the woman to be used in your silly analogies? What point of the pregnancy are they worthy of usage in your silly analogies?

Pro-choice on.. what to have for lunch today? No. Pro choice to have an abortion. Stop hiding behind words in the English language which have nothing to do with abortion.

Right let me respectfully pick this apart.

You aren't making sense. The proposed changes are for women to have abortions up to twelve weeks, 2 days before the baby is born still means the baby isn't born.

I'm pro choice for women to have the right to go down the route of legally having an abortion in Ireland. I am not pro-abortion, I do not agree with abortion.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus

That is exactly the point - why should they have the same rights as a 16 week fetus? 24? A baby an hour before birth? It is ridiculous.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Percy Judd wrote: »

It doesn't justify killing.

So remind us again, what are you doing to stop abortions? Because keeping the 8th clearly doesn't achieve that aim.

Percy Judd wrote: »

You're in a burning building with your 1 year old son and 4 year old daughter. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

I grab the nearest and run - faster I'm out the better our chances.

Now you: you are visiting the IVF lab when it catches fire. In the lab, there is a briefcase with 100 zygotes on ice, and the doctor's daughter, a toddler.

Do you save 1 toddler or 100 zygotes?

Make it 1000 zygotes. A million. We all know the answer is to save the child, because zygotes are not children.

I asked that question and funnily enough I did not get a straight answer.

SusieBlue

The only good thing to come of these hyperbolic posts is that they make me even more certain of my decision to be pro-choice, and more dedicated to the Repeal campaign.

I'm sure the day will come when a large amount of pro-lifers will thank their lucky stars that the 8th was repealed, when its one of their loved ones with their health/life at risk or going through a crisis pregnancy. Not that any of them will admit it out loud, of course.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The only good thing to come of these hyperbolic posts is that they make me even more certain of my decision to be pro-choice, and more dedicated to the Repeal campaign.

I'm sure the day will come when a large amount of pro-lifers will thank their lucky stars that the 8th was repealed, when its one of their loved ones with their health/life at risk or going through a crisis pregnancy. Not that any of them will admit it out loud, of course.

Absolutely!! I personally don't understand why people don't realize you can be pro-choice but still against abortion.

Anytime I've said I'm pro-choice it's immediately assumed I'm pro-abortion/all for abortions. I'm absolutely not, I don't agree with abortion whatsoever only in the most extreme circumstances where it's deemed absolutely necessary...

But I see the bigger picture. If this goes through, my daughter won't have to worry about going through what so many women in this women had to go through in order to get an abortion. Nor will her daughters daughters. This vote is not about what my personal beliefs are, this vote is about ensuring the future generations ladies the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

I don't want women to have abortions. But I don't want my daughter shamed and chased out of her own country by bigots because she doesn't have the right to a legal abortion over here a whole lot more.

Edward M

robarmstrong wrote: »

Absolutely!! I personally don't understand why people don't realize you can be pro-choice but still against abortion.

Anytime I've said I'm pro-choice it's immediately assumed I'm pro-abortion/all for abortions. I'm absolutely not, I don't agree with abortion whatsoever only in the most extreme circumstances where it's deemed absolutely necessary...

But I see the bigger picture. If this goes through, my daughter won't have to worry about going through what so many women in this women had to go through in order to get an abortion. Nor will her daughters daughters. This vote is not about what my personal beliefs are, this vote is about ensuring the future generations ladies the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

I don't want women to have abortions. But I don't want my daughter shamed and chased out of her own country by bigots because she doesn't have the right to a legal abortion over here a whole lot more.

Same as people think you can't be pro repeal and anti choice perhaps.
More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I'm sure the day will come when a large amount of pro-lifers will thank their lucky stars that the 8th was repealed, when its one of their loved ones with their health/life at risk or going through a crisis pregnancy. Not that any of them will admit it out loud, of course.

The thing no-one will admit out loud is that they voted to keep the 8th, just as you never meet anyone who voted against divorce or Same Sex Marriage these days.

No-one bar the hard core of sign-carrying Ionanists will ever have been anti repeal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M wrote: »

More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

You keep saying that, but what is this magic formula that pro-life people would be OK with? FFA , rape and incest only?

How will the rape exception work? The Citizen's Assembly considered this, and said it is not feasible to prove legally that a rape happened. A contributor in this thread suggested a sort of Rape Inquisition which would grill raped women, with psychologists who would know if they were lying, which sounds like a barrel of laughs.

If you have a workable suggestion, let's hear it.

Edward M wrote: »

Same as people think you can't be pro repeal and anti choice perhaps.
More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

What would you suggest otherwise? Your first big scan in a maternity hospital (if you aren't in with the Early Pregnancy Unit) is the 12 week scan. Do you think reducing the weeks to let's say 8, would be more suited to those potential pro repealers?

Are you pro choice or pro life? If you're pro life that's fine, I've actually been looking forward to having an actual reasonable discussion with a pro-lifer and I can see sense in what you're saying there.

Edward M wrote: »

More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

Haven't we covered all this before? Repeatedly?

NuMarvel wrote: »

Haven't we covered all this before? Repeatedly?

TBH I feel we have covered everything, and most of the thread could have been replaced with: "Read the reports the legislation will be based on".

But new folks keep rocking up and joining in, so...