The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself.

No, we are saying it would have been OK to abort all of us with no restrictions up to 12 weeks. Haven't you read the proposals?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your area (south dublin) will be a yes. It is outside Dublin that is genuinely going to bring no vote up.

Don't forget that this is a national referendum, not an election. Your vote counts just as much even if your area is 100% Yes, and counts as much as some Mattie McGrath fan in boggerland.

(Says he from the middle of the bog).

That is an important point. A 20 % no vote in a constituency with a million people is the same as an 80% no vote in a constituency with 250,000 people.
I live in Donegal where people generally reject referendums, (the yes in the marriage referendum was a surprise) but that doesn't matter every yes or no vote goes into the same pot. I can imagine a No vote in rural constituencies due to demographics.

And now the SSM referendum:

Some differences in the most pro/anti there, but you can see that the most pro-life area in 1983 overlaps the most anti-SSM area in Longford. The areas of Dublin do not exactly correspond, which may be down to demographic changes?

Simon Harris spent the last number of months mostly tweeting about wanting the 8th amendment removed and talked about women’s health, while he seemed to miss that 12 to 15 women died from the cervical check scandal.

Hector Savage wrote: »

I must say, the carry on of the YES movement would almost change my mind on the issue - tearing down posters, trying to shut down the pro life view ....wtf ?

Seems really aggressive too .

Funny that you would see that on one side, but not on the other. Neither side has a monopoly on this kind of behaviour.

Another thing, on Twitter I have NEVER tweeted nor Re tweeted anything remotely pro life, yet I am blocked by a number of PRO CHOICE
users - that I have had zero interaction with ???

My guess is they have some list that is created by a bot - so maybe I follow certain pro life people but for other views they may have - seems very dangerous and orwellian.

There are options and extensions on twitter to auto-mute or auto-block accounts based on a number of criteria - notably whether you've confirmed your email & phone number, and are using a default picture.

"Orwellian" is the exact opposite of what it is. Private individuals are entitled to ignore the opinions of other private individuals.

A substantial amount of paid effort has been spent on twitter trying to troll pro-choice accounts and waste their time and efforts.

You can take solace in the fact that you'd be wasting your time engaging with these people because you're not going to be able to get them to change their mind.

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's equally as repulsive, but am almost certain it happens way way less...

What about the far from comprehensive list I posted above?

Hector Savage wrote: »

Anyway, I seem to be on that repeal shield block list, bizarre really.

But is that enough to make you vote one way or another? Surely its more important to look at the facts and decide your vote based on that and not the behaviour of the extremes of either side or the debate?

Flying Fox wrote: »

I decided to educate myself, read up on the medical facts, and decide where I can draw the line. From doing this, I realised pretty quickly that a foetus of less that 12 weeks cannot be considered as valuable as the life of an actual born person. At that early stage it is not a sentient being and it cannot feel pain. As the pregnancy goes on, of course the foetus develops towards being an actual baby, but under 12 weeks it is very much a potential life.

This is a classic Nozz-ism.
Medical facts didn't tell you that a foetus less than 12 weeks is not as valuable as the life of "an actual born person". You have decided it isn't and that's fine. You have decided that a lack of pain perception and sentience means it has less value. That may be true but I'm not sure what one's criteria can be exactly to determine the value of a life or indeed by what right we consider ourselves capable of making such a judgement.

Nozzferrahtoo has described the pre-16 week foetus as a "blueprint" which is manifestly false. A blueprint does not become the thing it describes - a blueprint is just a piece of paper. He then latterly described it as 'merely a self-building blueprint' which might be more accurate but a self-building blueprint would be such a uniquely remarkable thing that using it as an argument to lessen the value of something would be counter-productive. I'm not sure if he himself has ever described the early foetus as a "clump of cells" but it's a popular one. It might be accurate but I don't find it a particularly compelling analogue - we're all just bunches of cells.

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another. We don't say that an infant's life is less valuable than an adult's because the former's sentience is less than the latter's. We don't say that an Alzheimer's life has less value because their sentience is diminishing. We don't dismiss the value of the life of the person suffering from congenital analgesia because they can no longer feel pain.

Anyway, all of this language (blueprints and bunches of cells) is merely designed to devalue the life of the unborn which I don't think is necessary or indeed right when considering this referendum. I'll be voting Yes for the simple reason that it's a woman's body and a woman's baby inside her and it's up to her whether she wants to allow her body to continue serving that baby or not. I don't need to lessen the life of the unborn to do that.

Mousewar wrote: »

This is a classic Nozz-ism.
Medical facts didn't tell you that a foetus less than 12 weeks is not as valuable as the life of "an actual born person". You have decided it isn't and that's fine. You have decided that a lack of pain perception and sentience means it has less value. That may be true but I'm not sure what one's criteria can be exactly to determine the value of a life or indeed by what right we consider ourselves capable of making such a judgement.

Nozzferrahtoo has described the pre-16 week foetus as a "blueprint" which is manifestly false. A blueprint does not become the thing it describes - a blueprint is just a piece of paper. He then latterly described it as 'merely a self-building blueprint' which might be more accurate but a self-building blueprint would be such a uniquely remarkable thing that using it as an argument to lessen the value of something would be counter-productive. I'm not sure if he himself has ever described the early foetus as a "clump of cells" but it's a popular one. It might be accurate but I don't find it a particularly compelling analogue - we're all just bunches of cells.

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another. We don't say that an infant's life is less valuable than an adult's because the former's sentience is less than the latter's. We don't say that an Alzheimer's life has less value because their sentience is diminishing. We don't dismiss the value of the life of the person suffering from congenital analgesia because they can no longer feel pain.

Anyway, all of this language (blueprints and bunches of cells) is merely designed to devalue the life of the unborn which I don't think is necessary or indeed right when considering this referendum. I'll be voting Yes for the simple reason that it's a woman's body and a woman's baby inside her and it's up to her whether she wants to allow her body to continue serving that baby or not. I don't need to lessen the life of the unborn to do that.

The comparison with Alzheimers is a good one.
There is legal basis to rescind a contract signed by someone with Alzheimers as they were not of sound mind. Generally (depending on severity) they will have a carer and an appointed medical and legal proxy. Be that formally or informally.

So as the sentience is lessening, the legal status of "person" and the associated rights, privileges and expectations also lessen.
Now as there is always some sentience, even if just for a few seconds on a rotating basis, it is not the same as an embro or foetus, but you can see it is a lessened form of existence.

Mod: Thread has gotten too big. Nice shiney new thread open over here.