The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

Why are they not campaigning to repeal the amendment in our constitution that specifically allows women to travel to procure abortions, if that were the case?

They aren't doing so because the don't care. They aren't bothered about the 4k Irish women forced to travel in tragic circumstances every year.

Once its not in their backyard, its not their problem. And they can proudly proclaim that Ireland is a good catholic country free of abortion, ignoring the reality that is right in front of them.

My advice to such people would be to stop worrying and soapboaxing about the bedroom activities and uterus's of other people, and to mind their own business.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do we seek the consent or opinion of the unborn on any other matter? Vaginal birth or c-section? Breast or bottle?
How do you propose we obtain such consent?

I'll give you a hint. Its because the unborn are not a born citizen. The woman in the scenario, is a born citizen.
And her needs, wants, and wishes should always trump that of a >12 week old fetus unless she CHOOSES otherwise.

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

So explain this:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How many "pro-life" posters have come into this thread and said they are OK with travel to the UK? I don't think a single one has ever said they were opposed to the 13th amendment and would like it repealed, not one.

Votes for the 8th in 1983: 1,265,994
Votes for the 13th in 1993: 1,733,821

Some of these had to be the same people. I have never seen anyone admit to being one of the 600,000+ who voted against the 13th.

horseburger wrote: »

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

How could a fetus give consent ?

horseburger wrote: »

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

this has already been answered for you. you keep ignoring replies.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this has already been answered for you. you keep ignoring replies.

No it hasn't. The example given was a brain dead person.

Wouldn't the difference there be that the brain dead human would not have chance of recovery, whereas in abortion without restriction, the human has a healthy life ahead?

horseburger wrote: »

By your argument, because a human foetus can't give consent, that makes it ok to deliberately end life?

Don't we all instinctively defend ourselves when another person makes contact with us, in a way which endangers our ability to live?

Why would that be any different to an unborn human being?

Why would we consider a possibility that an unborn human would give consent for that life to be ended?

Did the fetus give consent to be there in the first place?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Did the fetus give consent to be there in the first place?

You are suggesting that because it didn't decide to become a living human being, that that human life should be ended?

SusieBlue wrote: »

They are not born citizens. The rights of the unborn should not be upheld at the expense of the woman carrying them. I am not denying that its human. But it isn't a born human. The pregnant woman is a born citizen.

You keep bringing up consent as if its some sort of "gotcha!" finding - how do you propose we get consent from the unborn?

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn?

It is human before and after birth and is dependent on others for many years after birth.

horseburger wrote: »

By your argument, because a human foetus can't give consent, that makes it ok to deliberately end life?

Don't we all instinctively defend ourselves when another person makes contact with us, in a way which endangers our ability to live?

Why would that be any different to an unborn human being?

Why would we consider a possibility that an unborn human would give consent for that life to be ended?

Maybe ask those questions to the almost 4k a year that travel outside of Ireland to abort.
Women living here are still having the abortions abroad , you do know that right?

horseburger wrote: »

I am referring to the issue that the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee is that abortion would be available without restriction for 12 weeks.

It isn't just abortion in certain circumstances that is recommended.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

How are certain circumstances more important than others?. Is rape as important as a birth abnormality for instance?

reubenreuben wrote: »

Maybe ask those questions to the almost 4k a year that travel outside of Ireland to abort.
Women living here are still having the abortions abroad , you do know that right?

Yes I do, but that doesn't alter the fundamental concern that people who are opposed to abortion, have about abortion which is about the fundamental issue of the justification of deliberately ending a human life.

horseburger wrote: »

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn?

It is human before and after birth and is dependent on others for many years after birth.

Because it doesn't deserve the same rights of the woman carrying it. Her rights, needs and want should take priority unless she chooses otherwise.
I am more important than a >12 week fetus.

If you saw a fertility clinic on fire, and could only save one or the other, would you save a toddler, or a petri dish with a zygote inside? Which would you save, and why?

horseburger wrote: »

Any confirmed pregnancy, involving an unborn human being, created as a result of a male human sperm and female human egg, is human, is it not?

Did anything I write suggest otherwise? If not then I am not clear why you are asking me this. No one anywhere on this ENTIRE thread appears to be to be denying the biological taxonomy involved here. What they ARE doing is questioning you on the relevance of it. Something you have not deigned to respond to. And I do not find myself under any confusion as to why that might be.

horseburger wrote: »

The debate about abortion, centres around the question on whether is right or wrong to deliberately end human life.

No it does not and I explained why. I am not sure why repeating the same thing I just responded to.... unedited and unchanged..... is something you consider a mature and valid way to respond to another person in a conversation.

Let me correct your error again however.

The debate about abortion centers around whether a fetus at 12 weeks has rights at all, and specifically the right to life.

You have not established such reasoning. You just screech "Human" at the issue and then dodge the rest.

horseburger wrote: »

Using trees to make newspapers does nothing to address the question of the justification to end an unborn human life.

Except yes it does. It points out the simple fact that we end life all the time. And if we therefore want to NOT end a particular life or collection of "life" then we need to provide reasons and reasoning as to why that might be.

Shouting "human" at that question just begs the question further. It certainly does not answer it. Nor, I suspect, can you answer it.

horseburger wrote: »

You are suggesting that because it didn't decide to become a living human being, that that human life should be ended?

Nope. They are suggesting that parsing this debate through the lens of a fetus giving "consent" is ridiculous in the first place. The nuance of how that was suggested however has sent it entirely over your head alas.

horseburger wrote: »

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn? It is human before and after birth

The answer to your question lies in what you said after it. Rights are not, or at least should not, be assigned based on mere taxonomy.

We are not entirely unlikely to invent General Artificial Intelligence in the future. Perhaps even sooner than we expect. Such Sentience will have concerns and agendas and desires and everything humans have. It will not be human.

Should it have rights? Should we hold moral and ethical concern for it? If so then why given it is not "Human"? If not then why not given it is every bit as sentient as you, if not more so? Should anyone be allowed simply turn it on and torture it?

horseburger wrote: »

Humans are dependent on others after birth as well. Humans are dependent on others for many years after birth.

But that care can be given by anyone. Prior to ~24 weeks _only_ ye woman who is pregnant can provide anything. Why should she be forced tonagainst her will?