8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

pjohnson · 08-05-2018 01:10PM

threescompany wrote: »

Regarding the Downs Syndrome abortions....... please watch “a world without Downs Syndrome “
It’s been on channel 4 a few times so I’m sure it’s on repeat somewhere. We all want to be informed so please just watch this. The statistics are more than 90% in many European countries. Just watch the TV programme and come to your own conclusions. Aborting Downs babies is the absolute norm over there. Please don’t argue that. It’s a fact. It’s extremely insulting to try and argue it when it’s a fact so please continue with your repeal debate but accept that almost all Downs babies are aborted in UK, France, Belgium, Germany , Iceland ..... oh yeh, their choice, I forgot!!

Most of those lines try to make it sound like it will lead to a complete extinction. Which is false. No more than the 1 in 5. The few facts the "no" side have they exagerrate to parody levels.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 01:11PM

The_Brood wrote: »

If part of society is making the argument "we must do this horrible thing in order to prevent this horrible thing" then that is a separate part of the topic that can be examined on its own.

However, what is the prevailing argument is "we must stop this horrible thing because eh that other thing is not as important as some are claiming."

The worst of the worst of humankind is a story of denying others rights when it doesn't suit are needs. There is no category of human beings that we haven't tried to deny rights from. Whether it be by race, nationality, ability - and now stage of development, the list is endless. Whenever we want to do something in our benefit, we seek to dehumanize others and pretend that the being that will suffer should not have the same rights. This is what is happening here. You can't have it both ways. You can't both have abortions and pretend like it is not taking human life.

No one is pretending.

Conception to Week 8 - Embryo
Week 9 to Week 24 - Foetus
Week 24 to Birth - still foetus but loss of this foetus is classed as stillbirth

At 12 weeks - which the Dail MAY be asked to vote on, the foetus has no brain stem; eyes are closed; lungs are not fully formed; facial features are not yet fully formed; it weighs less that an ounce and measures less than 2 inches. Less than a matchbox.

I have a photograph of myself with my month old niece. How are you try to compare the foetus described above with a living, breathing, giggling, baby who incidentally was peeing on my as the photo was taken.

I'm not touching the "mouse" analogy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 01:12PM

The_Brood wrote: »

In fact, there is a much greater difference between an adult person and a 1 month old baby than a baby and a fetus.

But only you are equivocating over the size of differences. Whereas many other people are not having a pissing contest between different instances of sentience at all.

Rather they recognize that the ACTUAL relevant difference between a fetus, and the babies and adults of which you speak.... is that the former lacks the faculty entirely, the latter 2 do not.

pjohnson · 08-05-2018 01:13PM

The_Brood wrote: »

And why does the law do this? Why does the law protect a baby but does not protect other sentient creatures who are much more advanced than it? Why is the law blind to a human life that is still unborn when it fully protects a human being that is still worlds away from what we recognize as a fully grown man or woman? Is this not wrong?

That is my answer to your second question. If a 1 month old baby is provided full rights by the government, so should a fetus. Both are still growing and developing but a million miles away from anything we recognize as a fully grown adult. In fact, there is a much greater difference between an adult person and a 1 month old baby than a baby and a fetus.

If we are operating on an "you earn your rights as you grow" philosophy, then it is absolutely absurd that a new born baby should have the same rights to life as a 30 year old person. And yet, that is exactly what the law is, in almost every country.

A one month old can breath independently, digest independently, sh*t independently, move (well wiggle), cry. A fetus can't without a host. A baby is a separate independent organism.

The_Brood · 08-05-2018 01:18PM

pjohnson wrote: »

A one month old can breath independently, digest independently, sh*t independently, move (well wiggle), cry. A fetus can't without a host. A baby is a separate independent organism.

A human baby is absolutely incapable of taking care of itself and surviving without immediate and constant care. Unlike other animals, a human baby is utterly defenseless for the first few years of its life. Mowgli aside. That is why parents/guardians of a child go to jail if they do not care for it and let the baby die. They may never have touched a single hair on its head, but they are still going to prison.

And even beyond that, acting as if a human life's ability to take care of itself and survive on its own should decide whether it should have the right to life is contrary to pretty much every single last strand of human morality.

pjohnson · 08-05-2018 01:20PM

The_Brood wrote: »

A human baby is absolutely incapable of taking care of itself and surviving without immediate and constant care. Unlike other animals, a human baby is utterly defenseless for the first few years of its life. Mowgli aside. That is why parents/guardians of a child go to jail if they do not care for it and let the baby die. They may never have touched a single hair on its head, but they are still going to prison.

And even beyond that, acting as if a human life's ability to take care of itself and survive on its own should decide whether it should have the right to life is contrary to pretty much every single last strand of human morality.

Well you misunderstood/avoided everything :pac:

....... · 08-05-2018 01:22PM

This post has been deleted.

ELM327 · 08-05-2018 01:23PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll ask my dogs outside and they will give more coherent reasonable answers than some on this thread to be fair.

We're one post short of being "godwinned" at this stage.

RobertKK · 08-05-2018 01:23PM

Overheal wrote: »

Aside from a noticeable and brief uptick when the housing crisis happened and the first gulf war, abortion rates in the US have continued to decline every year since legalization with the exception of the first few years when the base rate and record keeping got established. So RobertKKs concerns to me seem unfounded

So why are you using the US and not say the UK, Spain, Portugal etc?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 01:24PM

The_Brood wrote: »

And even beyond that, acting as if a human life's ability to take care of itself and survive on its own should decide whether it should have the right to life is contrary to pretty much every single last strand of human morality.

But read the post you are replying to again. It is NOT doing what you describe here. The post has nothing to do with the ability of the baby to care for itself or survive alone. We all know a baby can not do that either.

What the post you are replying to IS saying is subtely but massively different to that. You are replying to something the user did not even say.

It is not referring to the ability to survive alone, but the ability of it's very internal processes to operate as an independent entity.

I, like you, do not think that is a grounds for morality. So we agree on this. But if we are going to disagree with someone I think we should do it on the basis of what they are actually saying, and not what you have invented on their behalf. You would do well to learn the difference here. The difference being between being able to survive independently, and being able to even operate as an independent entity. The user is discussing the latter. You replied to them as if they were discussing the latter.

threescompany · 08-05-2018 01:26PM

pjohnson wrote: »

Most of those lines try to make it sound like it will lead to a complete extinction. Which is false. No more than the 1 in 5. The few facts the "no" side have they exagerrate to parody levels.

The FACTS are over 90% are aborted...... there is almost complete extinction ( as you put it ) in Iceland. I’m not trying to make it sound like anything. This is a FACT...... aborting Down’s syndromes is horrible in my opinion.

dundalkfc10 · 08-05-2018 01:27PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Disgraceful comment

I stand by it, Leo the liar being number one!

suicide_circus · 08-05-2018 01:27PM

If this thing gets the green light we need to start looking at a whole raft of other personal freedoms and personal morality issues that are currently denied to citizens including euthanasia and drug use.

Larbre34 · 08-05-2018 01:28PM

Agree. 'No' campaigners won't like it, but many people are content with the rationalisation that the foetus is something that cannot exist independently below a well defined gestation.

A 12 week termination limit is still 9/10 weeks short of the youngest recorded independent survival and the science of that is enough for me.

I'm also satisfied with the statements of 'yes' backing obstetricians that where a pregnancy has to be terminated late in term, that the child is delivered and supported with medical intervention. I also accept this is the spirit of the draft legislation and that 'No' side contention that late term abortion will be facilitated is just straight up lies and an insult to a fair debate.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 01:28PM

threescompany wrote: »

The FACTS are over 90% are aborted...... there is almost complete extinction ( as you put it ) in Iceland. I’m not trying to make it sound like anything. This is a FACT...... aborting Down’s syndromes is horrible in my opinion.

Do you think Downs is just odd looking almond shaped eyes ?

It has a myriad of health issues attached - like any chromosomal disorder.

And for about the billionth time - DS is NOT RELEVANT as you cannot test before 12 weeks and that is what we are voting on!

amcalester · 08-05-2018 01:28PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

If this thing gets the green light we need to start looking at a whole raft of other personal freedoms and personal morality issues that are currently denied to citizens including euthanasia and drug use.

Agreed.

08-05-2018 01:29PM

threescompany wrote: »

Regarding the Downs Syndrome abortions....... please watch “a world without Downs Syndrome “
It’s been on channel 4 a few times so I’m sure it’s on repeat somewhere. We all want to be informed so please just watch this. The statistics are more than 90% in many European countries. Just watch the TV programme and come to your own conclusions. Aborting Downs babies is the absolute norm over there. Please don’t argue that. It’s a fact. It’s extremely insulting to try and argue it when it’s a fact so please continue with your repeal debate but accept that almost all Downs babies are aborted in UK, France, Belgium, Germany , Iceland ..... oh yeh, their choice, I forgot!!

What are you trying to say here?
Babies that are diagnosed with downs should not be aborted? Are they more important to you then other pregnancies?

Triceratops Ballet · 08-05-2018 01:29PM

The_Brood wrote: »

And why does the law do this? Why does the law protect a baby but does not protect other sentient creatures who are much more advanced than it? Why is the law blind to a human life that is still unborn when it fully protects a human being that is still worlds away from what we recognize as a fully grown man or woman? Is this not wrong?

That is my answer to your second question. If a 1 month old baby is provided full rights by the government, so should a fetus. Both are still growing and developing but a million miles away from anything we recognize as a fully grown adult. In fact, there is a much greater difference between an adult person and a 1 month old baby than a baby and a fetus.

By that standing would you support the introduction of childrens allowance, child support payments and maternity leave from the day of conception? Should we start registering citizens at conception? allocate them pps numbers?

A one month old baby is capable of survival independent of the woman who gave birth to it, a foetus is not. A foetus is entirely dependant on the woman in which is resides. Without her it does not exist, it can not be considered a viable human life. If she died, it would too, that is not true of a one month old. (obviously this excludes the morbid situation in which she is kept alive artificially to act as an incubator against her families wishes).

Think outside of abortion for a sec, what do you think of the 8th amendment. The amendment on it's own and the implications it has for womens healthcare. Do you think it's beneficial? what purpose does it serve?

AtomicHorror · 08-05-2018 01:31PM

The_Brood wrote: »

Please explain why a 1 month old baby deserves protection if an unborn baby does not? Explain why in any way shape or form, given that we are ignoring all knowledge of what this baby is developing into, it deserves an ounce more protection than a mouse?

I think you're looking at it backwards.

What justification could you give for the killing of a born 1 month old?

There's a long list of reasons for abortion that don't hinge on whether a foetus is alive, whether it is human, or really anything to do with the foetus itself.

What medical or moral reason would there be to kill a born baby?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 01:32PM

threescompany wrote: »

aborting Down’s syndromes is horrible in my opinion.

Why? What has DS got to do with anything?

If you think that abortion is horrible, then abortion due to DS is just a subset of that. So why focus on DS specifically? It is already a given you think it horrible.

If however you think abortion is ok, then what is it to you what the reasons for that abortion are? Why is the abortion due to DS horrible in the way any other abortion is not?

So whichever way you swing on abortion itself, focusing specifically on DS seems to have no real purpose or utility other than propaganda.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 01:32PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

By that standing would you support the introduction of childrens allowance, child support payments and maternity leave from the day of conception? Should we start registering citizens at conception? allocate them pps numbers?

A one month old baby is capable of survival independent of the woman who gave birth to it, a foetus is not. A foetus is entirely dependant on the woman in which is resides. Without her it does not exist, it can not be considered a viable human life. If she died, it would too, that is not true of a one month old. (obviously this excludes the morbid situation in which she is kept alive artificially to act as an incubator against her families wishes).

Think outside of abortion for a sec, what do you think of the 8th amendment. The amendment on it's own and the implications it has for womens healthcare. Do you think it's beneficial? what purpose does it serve?

If you travel should the foetus have a passport ? With the scan as its photograph ?

(Note I think that's stupid but some posters are taking is through the looking glass and so when in Rome!)

....... · 08-05-2018 01:33PM

This post has been deleted.

The_Brood · 08-05-2018 01:33PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

but someone MUST care for the newborn or else it is dead. So it is not anywhere near as independent as you are claiming.

I would say it is a ridiculous moral line that just because a fetus needs its mother, it means that it should not have the right to life. What happens in the future if science designs some way for fetuses to live independently of their mothers even at an early stage? It's a completely arbitrary line that a person - potential future adult's entire life and existence must entirely depend on when they are able to exist more independently without their mother. Astonishingly arbitrary that aligns with nothing we recognize as human morality.

January · 08-05-2018 01:34PM

threescompany wrote: »

The FACTS are over 90% are aborted...... there is almost complete extinction ( as you put it ) in Iceland. I’m not trying to make it sound like anything. This is a FACT...... aborting Down’s syndromes is horrible in my opinion.

Aborting Down's syndromes what? Seriously your language is disgusting and horrible.

The FACTS (see I can capitalise too) are that it's 90% of pregnancies that are diagnosed with DS that are terminated, not 90% total. The FACT is that DS cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks and DS does not come under FFA so will not come under the proposed legislation.

Also, your FACTS about Iceland are wrong but that's been debunked so many times in these threads that its laughable at this stage that people are still bringing it up, so I won't even go there.

PopePalpatine · 08-05-2018 01:35PM

seamus wrote: »

As horrendous as the images are, it makes me glad that the No side have failed to restrain themselves and polish themselves up with a veneer of respectability.

On one side you have reasonable discussion, stories of heartbreak without gratuitous or unnecessary imagery, moral and ethical canvassing practices, and an overall theme of respect and compassion.

On the other side you have gratuitous imagery, unethical and immoral picketing practices, blatant lies, smear attempts and an overall theme of viciousness and anger.

The No side have truly shown their teeth in this campaign, and it makes me glad. Because no one who considers themselves a reasonable human being would find their conduct convincing or acceptable.

Again, I wish I had your hope, but Brexit and Trump have me thinking otherwise.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 01:35PM

The_Brood wrote: »

but someone MUST care for the newborn or else it is dead. So it is not anywhere near as independent as you are claiming.

I would say it is a ridiculous moral line that just because a fetus needs its mother, it means that it should not have the right to life. What happens in the future if science designs some way for fetuses to live independently of their mothers even at an early stage? It's a completely arbitrary line that a person - potential future adult's entire life and existence must entirely depend on when they are able to exist more independently without their mother. Astonishingly arbitrary that aligns with nothing we recognize as human morality.

Alright, I'll bite. As I mentioned earlier, my nan died having my mother.

My grandfather and other relatives cared for her from birth.

Not her mother.

Yes, a baby needs SOMEONE to care for it but that can be anywhere, anyone - related or not, male or female.

A FOETUS is solely dependent on the host parent. That's it.

Do you understand now ?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 01:36PM

The_Brood wrote: »

but someone MUST care for the newborn or else it is dead. So it is not anywhere near as independent as you are claiming.

I just corrected that error so comical that you should make it again.

NO ONE is denying that the newborn can not care for itself. But it is still functionally operating as an independent entity, albeit one that can not survive without assistance and care.

There is a difference between "can not survive independently" and "is not at all an independent entity". Stop pretending the latter (which people are discussing) is the same as the former.

Triceratops Ballet · 08-05-2018 01:36PM

The_Brood wrote: »

but someone MUST care for the newborn or else it is dead. So it is not anywhere near as independent as you are claiming.

I would say it is a ridiculous moral line that just because a fetus needs its mother, it means that it should not have the right to life. What happens in the future if science designs some way for fetuses to live independently of their mothers even at an early stage? It's a completely arbitrary line that a person - potential future adult's entire life and existence must entirely depend on when they are able to exist more independently without their mother. Astonishingly arbitrary that aligns with nothing we recognize as human morality.

Sidenote - morals are 100% subjective, there is not 1 agreed standard of morality. Your definition of morals are not definitive and they're not fact

seamus · 08-05-2018 01:37PM

gmisk wrote: »

I agree entirely, but those polls recently are worrying me a bit...so it is obviously working to a degree as is the very targeted and clearly expensive online ad spend.

The polls don't seem to be shifting quite as much as people think they are tbh.

It's to be expected that they would tighten up as the date approaches, but not in any major way.

This is especially true if you compare a poll by a company with the last poll by that company, and not with the polls by other companies.

Also, the nature of this discussion means you get strange results coming out:

The most recent poll by the Sunday Indo put it at 45/34/22: Yes/No/Dunno. Which seems kind of worrying. The question there was "Will you vote to remove the eighth amendment?"

The same poll also asked people what they thought about the 12 week limit. 42% said it sounds about right and 32% said it went too far. Which seems consistent with the referendum poll. However, of the remaining 26%, they weren't all "Don't knows". 11% of that group said that it Didn't go far enough.

So why isn't the "Yes" vote in that poll actually closer to 53%? It could be that there's a significant untapped portion of "Don't knows" who are completely and utterly pro-choice, but are worried that voting "Yes" will mean that the right to choose will never be extended.

This is the main reason, IMO, why saying that "Don't knows" will probably vote No, is just not correct, and why we need to look at all polls as a whole rather than single ones in isolation.

Although, ignoring that it's also worth noting that the Sunday Indo poll before the SSM referendum was the most pessimistic and put it at 69/31, which was nearly bang on. Very unscientific pessimistic extrapolation based on the last Indo poll would put it at 54/46 win for the Yes side.

We know it's going to be close and turnout will mean everything on the day.

....... · 08-05-2018 01:39PM

This post has been deleted.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments