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

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 08:10AM

Just her wrote: »

The foetus is a developing child

It is developing INTO a child, that does not make it a child.

Just her wrote: »

Your pubic hair follicle isn't comparable to a developing baby

Of course it is. Depending on what your criteria of comparison is EVERYTHING is comparable to everything else. For example are rocks and cars comparable? Yes, if your criteria is "things that are grey".

Similarly the comparison criteria used in the post in question was "has 100% human DNA - hence it is human" and by THAT criteria a fetus and a pubic hair are perfectly comparable.

Your problem is not with the comparison, but with the criteria used. The problem is that there are no good and relevant criteria we can use to compare a fetus to a "person". Which is why many people have no moral issue with the termination of a 10 week old fetus.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:13AM

Overheal wrote: »

Not with some bollocks argument that DNA should be granted human rights, no.

I’m happier there’s No folks out there yelling that a baby is done developing at 12 weeks and that abortion and the Holocaust are one and the same

Who says babies are done developing at 12 weeks? I think it's more if you give them more time they can survive alone, rather than end their life at a time when you feel it is more palatable to do so

Overheal · 17-05-2018 08:14AM

Just her wrote: »

Your pubic hair follicle isn't comparable to a developing baby

Depending on the stage of development there are more cells in my strand of hair than in the embryo though. We could make this same thought experiment over a pound of my flesh or a pint of my blood.

Basically I just think the DNA argument is a red herring and a dead end. I don’t think an awful many courts around the world have agreed with the basis either for that matter.

tigger123 · 17-05-2018 08:14AM

The No side are defintily going to take encouragement from this morning's poll. Momentum is important in these campaigns.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 08:16AM

Just her wrote: »

Who says babies are done developing at 12 weeks?

Since you ask...... I did not watch the RTE debate the other night but I have been led to believe that one of the "expert" doctors on the "no" panel was in fact calling 12 week old fetuses "Fully formed".

I believe that was the exact phrase but I can be corrected. What distinction he was making, if any, between "fully formed" and "done developing" I do not know but calling a 12 week old fetus "fully formed" is highly misleading and dishonest.

ELM327 · 17-05-2018 08:16AM

Just her wrote: »

Your pubic hair follicle isn't comparable to a developing baby

No, but it is to a foetus.

freshpopcorn · 17-05-2018 08:20AM

dog tired wrote: »

I'm actually surprised by some people I know and their response to this referendum. Reading about alot of people voting no. People I thought would be open to change. We were able to change to allow gay marriage but people still thinks we should keep backwards rules about abortion. I know it's their choice but abortion happens and we send people off to another country to get it done. That's just very very sad. Then I saw a pregnant lady last week with a vote yes t-shirt on her. I thought someone like that would have their hormones all over the place and would be voting no. I think it's going to be a tight one with the results.

I really agree with this. In the marriage referendum I was surprised at a few of the religious people voting Yes. However I haven't experienced this time around.
My aunt is another example would always have being liberal towards gay rights, cannabis being legalised and was about abortion.(She kicked an awful shindy over Lucinda Creighton a few years ago). She now intends not to vote.

Annabella1 · 17-05-2018 08:23AM

tigger123 wrote: »

The No side are defintily going to take encouragement from this morning's poll. Momentum is important in these campaigns.

Only 3-4% swing in a month
Don’t see a shock in last week
This has been debated to death over last 30 years
Depends on turnout

kylith · 17-05-2018 08:24AM

Just her wrote: »

Your pubic hair follicle isn't comparable to a developing baby

Key word there is DEVELOPING. It is developing into a baby, it is not a baby.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:25AM

Overheal wrote: »

It would be a human fetus would it not. Life in the making but not a living breathing person.

A human foetus and a developing baby are one and the same. Foetus comes from Latin meaning young or offspring

neonsofa · 17-05-2018 08:26AM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I really agree with this. In the marriage referendum I was surprised at a few of the religious people voting Yes. However I haven't experienced this time around.
My aunt is another example would always have being liberal towards gay rights, cannabis being legalised and was about abortion.(She kicked an awful shindy over Lucinda Creighton a few years ago). She now intends not to vote.

I've been pleasantly surprised by a number of people that I believed would be voting no. They turned out to be quite firmly on the repeal side. But equally so, I've been very surprised by people my age, early 30s , women saying it doesnt affect them cause they will never have a termination. The indifference and ignorance is really disappointing.

tigger123 · 17-05-2018 08:28AM

Annabella1 wrote: »

Only 3-4% swing in a month
Don’t see a shock in last week
This has been debated to death over last 30 years
Depends on turnout

The hardline No voters will see this as their chance though. Definitely depends on turnout on the day.

kylith · 17-05-2018 08:28AM

Just her wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

It would be a human fetus would it not. Life in the making but not a living breathing person.

A human foetus and a developing baby are one and the same. Foetus comes from Latin meaning young or offspring

So? ‘Cat’ comes from the Latin for ‘puppy’. Doesn’t mean it is one.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 08:28AM

Just her wrote: »

A human foetus and a developing baby are one and the same. Foetus comes from Latin meaning young or offspring

Pedantically and linguistically one could start to argue they are the same. But if they were exactly the same we would not see the trend that "yes" campaigners use one almost exclusively and "No" campaigners use the other almost exclusively.

The fact this happens tells you there IS a difference. And I believe the basis of that difference is very clear indeed. It is that the word "baby" imports..... no I would say "smuggles in"..... implications, attributes, ideas, narratives, emotions and more that the fetus simply does not have, and does not warrant the pretense that it has.

The use of the word "baby" is contrived to trigger emotions and lines of thought that are simply fallacious and misleading. And I think they, and you, know that well even if you feign ignorance.

kylith wrote: »

So? ‘Cat’ comes from the Latin for ‘puppy’. Doesn’t mean it is one.

I learn things when I post on threads. Almost invariably. I have to say I have learned more knowledge and bits of trivia from this thread than any other I have ever posted on though. I really did not know that.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:31AM

Dressing gown wrote: »

Catholicism used to believe the teachings of St Augustine that the unborn did not have a soul until the quickening (when a mother can feel the baby move) at about 16 weeks. Until then it was not considered to be a person.

Scientifically, there is a form of life at conception. My view is it is a developing life. Calling it a baby is utter nonsense. For the DNA lovers, the placenta has the exact same DNA as the foetus yet it goes in medical waste. So you might need to go back to the drawing board and hone your argument a bit. Interestingly some cultures respect the placenta and bury it in a grave-they view it as a living entity that dies to enable the baby to be born.

A foetus doesn’t give a rashers until it can actually give a rashers. Assigning human emotion to something incapable of human emotion is just a hangover of the catholic church in Ireland yet again interfering in the lives of women of this country.

Why are you bringing religion into it? I know religious that are pro choice and atheists that are pro life.

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 08:35AM

Just her wrote: »

Who says babies are done developing at 12 weeks? I think it's more if you give them more time they can survive alone, rather than end their life at a time when you feel it is more palatable to do so

Some common ground then. But as pointed out the no campaign tried to suggest a 12 week old foetus was fully formed but needed to do a bit more growing and told Boylan to go back to medical school. I mean how can a rational person take anything after that as credible or true?

A caterpillar is not a butterfly and it takes a matter of a few days to several weeks to transform into a butterfly. Can you imagine how much development there is in the course of 40 weeks? The foetus develops at an exponential rate at some stages. Their growth slows after they are born but babies cannot see their sight has to develop. There are many things that occur that scientists think mean the foetus would have stayed in the womb longer but for the requirement for the woman to birth it through the birth canal. I can’t get my head around then how you believe at 12 weeks the entity in the womb (who can’t feel, or speak or remember or control its body I could go on) should have the same rights as a fully developed woman.

Overheal · 17-05-2018 08:38AM

Just her wrote: »

Why are you bringing religion into it? I know religious that are pro choice and atheists that are pro life.

Religion has a lot to do with the issue regardless. Worth noting, especially as it influences people’s decision making whether they are spiritual or not, or has significant cultural impact and has had major historical impact on where we are at. Plus, just as there are pro choice theists and pro life atheists there are plenty of pro choice atheists and pro life theists the arguments resonate toward.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 08:39AM

Just her wrote: »

Why are you bringing religion into it?

The user did not "bring religion into it" really. What he did do was give a brief history of how humans did or did not consider the fetus to be a human and pointed out that until a certain point it was not. And that point HAPPENED to relate to the Catholic Church.

The main substance of the users post is contained in his second paragraph, but you are using taking exception to one single word of the post (the first one) to dodge that aspect of the post.

Just her wrote: »

I know religious that are pro choice and atheists that are pro life.

I have met very few atheists who are not pro choice and I have worked with a hell of a lot of them for various reasons. Both in Ireland and abroad.

And the ones who were not pro choice had VERY poor arguments for their position. Christopher Hitchens for example, who otherwise was characterized by putting a lot of thought into his positions on any matter, was particularly egregious in this regard. His explanation for his Pro Life position was ENTIRELY linguistic in nature. Because a certain term exists, he felt that the term in question had to mean something, therefore he had to be pro life. This is about as poor an argument as any I have heard on the topic.

While here on boards we have one atheist who is against it for the most contrived and fantastical of notions. Such as claiming that doctors will be forced to "participate" in abortions. His definition of "participate" being so dilute and labile that he means that a doctor who does not engage with abortion, but who is compelled to offer a referral to a doctor who does.... is therefore "participating" in abortion.

I do not care if the person offering an argument against abortion is atheist. Atheism is not the BAYT AL-HIKMAH we require here. I care that their arguments against it are seriously flawed, contrived and fallacious and even.... as with redefining the word "participate" so badly.......... blatantly desperate.

tigger123 · 17-05-2018 08:45AM

Overheal wrote: »

Religion has a lot to do with the issue regardless. Worth noting, especially as it influences people’s decision making whether they are spiritual or not, or has significant cultural impact and has had major historical impact on where we are at. Plus, just as there are pro choice theists and pro life atheists there are plenty of pro choice atheists and pro life theists the arguments resonate toward.

I've yet to see an atheist pro life lobby group.

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2018 08:53AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Only seen 1 person being very forceful, basically the person was clearly voting NO but the Yes campaigner wouldn't let them pass. Its only one such incident i have personally withnessed

Thanks for answering. Appreciate it.

Grayson · 17-05-2018 08:55AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And the ones who were not pro choice had VERY poor arguments for their position. Christopher Hitchens for example, who otherwise was characterized by putting a lot of thought into his positions on any matter, was particularly egregious in this regard. His explanation for his Pro Life position was ENTIRELY linguistic in nature. Because a certain term exists, he felt that the term in question had to mean something, therefore he had to be pro life. This is about as poor an argument as any I have heard on the topic.

One would think that a man with the much experience debating and reading philosophy wouldn't have fallen into that trap. I find though that there are times hen someone holds a position based on how they feel emotionally about something, they will find a very weak argument to back it up.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:56AM

ELM327 wrote: »

No, but it is to a foetus.

Why so these type of comparisons only ever come up in abortion debates? I've yet to hear anyone congratulate a pregnant woman and add ' it's no more a baby than my pubic hair'. Is it because you need to dehumanise the baby to get abortion to sit right with you?

Overheal · 17-05-2018 08:59AM

tigger123 wrote: »

I've yet to see an atheist pro life lobby group.

I live in a post Trump post Brexit world. I have to assume they’re out there.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:59AM

Overheal wrote: »

This is where I’m at with it, philosophically. I understand the medical needs of a termination past 16 weeks, but until it’s kicking, and it’s got a brain, nervous system etc. it doesn’t have the container in any respect for a psyche or a soul.

How do you feel about the hurry to have its life ended just in time to get in before those parts are all fully formed, in order to make it appear ok to do so?

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 09:00AM

Just her wrote: »

Why so these type of comparisons only ever come up in abortion debates?

Because the empty arguments like "It is Human DNA" demand it. If one cohort stopped making such a bad argument, the other would stop using those comparisons to highlight why the argument is so bad.

Just her wrote: »

I've yet to hear anyone congratulate a pregnant woman and add ' it's no more a baby than my pubic hair'. Is it because you need to dehumanise the baby to get abortion to sit right with you?

Nope. It is because humanizing it before humanizing it is warranted is not a problem when congratulating someone on a pregnancy. The fact it is inaccurate and misleading nonsense does not cause any harm there. So why bother?

But in the debate about abortion smuggling in falsehoods and misleading narratives IS harmful, so it is worth rebutting.

No one is dehumanizing the fetus, they are preventing you from humanizing it before you have any actual basis for doing so.

Overheal · 17-05-2018 09:01AM

Just her wrote: »

Why so these type of comparisons only ever come up in abortion debates? I've yet to hear anyone congratulate a pregnant woman and add ' it's no more a baby than my pubic hair'. Is it because you need to dehumanise the baby to get abortion to sit right with you?

Because if you’re congratulating someone like that, they’ve made the decision to keep it surely?

You can refer to it as a baby sure but it still medically progresses through prenatal phases described as embryo, zygote, and fetus, before becoming an infant.

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2018 09:04AM

Just her wrote: »

Another poster wanted proof / evidence that the reason why UK abortion law went from 28 to 24 weeks was because doctors could keep babies alive from 24 weeks

That does not seem to be what I am reading. I am reading you claiming that an Irish government could extend the limit, despite there being no evidence to support this either domestically or internationally. That, in fact, the UK - with whom comparisons are being made even though the proposed Irish legislation is completely different - reduced the limit.

It strikes me as odd using the UK as a bogeyman given that if NO wins that will continue to be where the majority of Irish women seeking abortions will go.
A No vote is essentially a vote to use the UK system.

Grayson · 17-05-2018 09:05AM

Just her wrote: »

Why so these type of comparisons only ever come up in abortion debates? I've yet to hear anyone congratulate a pregnant woman and add ' it's no more a baby than my pubic hair'. Is it because you need to dehumanise the baby to get abortion to sit right with you?

But you would congratulate someone on a new job even if they haven't actually started yet.

When people try to say the foetus is a person they have to define what a human is. I don't think DNA is enough. A pubic hair has human DNA. A dead person on life support has DNA. If I chop of my finger, it has DNA. If simply saying it possesses human DNA was the only qualification then we'd be in a pickle.

Now I would agree that possessing human DNA is a criteria but it's not the only one. It's a starting point.

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2018 09:08AM

Sheeps wrote: »

This is another argument I can't reconcile. I think that same argument can be made to justify smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

Whether someone is pregnant of their own free will, an accident or by force, the situation about free will over your own body is not the same once there's another life involved. I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.

Theoretically the 8th could be used to make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke or drink - neither of which I think they should be doing by the way - but how far should be go to 'protect' the unborn?

Do you agree that another human should have control over a woman's body?

....... · 17-05-2018 09:12AM

This post has been deleted.

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

Comments