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

Dressing gown wrote: »

Just on the 12 week point and if the foetus is left alone it will turn into a sentient being ergo you are destroying a life point (this is a no argument in refuting I don’t agree with it).

There is a very large piece of the equation that is ignored in that logic.

If the foetus was left alone it would not become a sentient human being. It would die.

It’s existence is at the mercy of its mother. Everything the mother does has an impact on the foetus. If the mother drinks alcohol. If the mother doesn’t drink at all. If the mother hunger strikes. If the mother is a drug addict. If the mother is physically abused. If the mother suffers from mental illness. If the mother eats the wrong foods. If the mother takes the wrong medication. If the mother self harms. If the mother falls off her bike. If the mother is ill. If the mother is stressed. If the mother is healthy. If the mother dies.

The mother. You forget about the mother.

If the foetus was left alone in the womb it wouldn't die unless through miscarriage. Do you mean if the foetus was taken out of the womb and left alone, as in an abortion? Yes I agree it would die then.


I don't forget about the mother, I am one too.

Just her wrote: »

Can I ask you a question based on the above? You've said that we value some forms of life over others, morally and ethically, and this is because of sentience.

Can I ask of any other examples of these life forms which you don't believe are as valuable as others, please?

For example, are you talking about grass, trees, plants etc, that never ever will attain sentience?

Or are there any examples of life forms which are just about to become sentient which you see as of lesser value and which are therefore in your opinion not to be assigned rights?

Or is the foetus / baby in a unique position that we would need to consider differently to these other life forms?

I know you've said before that it is not sentient before a certain amount of weeks and you are concerned with the now, apologies if that is not exactly what you said but I believe that was the gist of it, but my question is there any other life form you would put in the same category, not assign rights to, that was just on the verge of sentience?

I'm going to step in here because I've formulated arguments like the one you mentioned.

Primates can be very intelligent. As can cetaceans. There's an argument for granting these rights. Not full human rights of course, it's not like they can vote or use a passport. But still granting them certain protections.
This is because they are smart, they can problem solve, they can communicate, they can feel emotions. They are the closest to humans that you can get in the animal kingdom.
We recognise these signs if sentience and we want to protect them (when I say we I mean a large group of people. It could include you)

To put it in perspective a foetus at 12 weeks has about the same neural activity and ability as a sea slug. There is a point further down the line where the foetus starts developing higher neural activity. I think at that point it should be protected. With one caveats. The mother has a choice about whether her life or the foetus comes first. So for example if she was diagnosed with cancer it's her choice about whether or not to proceed with chemo and of course every effort should be made to save the foetus as well.

I honestly think most people in Ireland are both pro choice and pro life at the same time. It's a messy subject. But pretty much everyone believes that a baby at 8 1/2 months development is a person and that abortion and that killing it would be killing a baby. At the same time most people don't believe that an embryo at a weeks development is a person. Most also believe abortion should be illegal in cases of incest, rape or FFA. Trying to pigeonhole them into pro choice or pro life is a very hard thing to do.

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

what are the polls? Do you have the figures handy please

Latest referendum polls show the 'Yes' side is ahead as gap narrows http://jrnl.ie/4023304

It looks promising for yes side, but that's just it, yes side needs to get out and vote, because the no side definitely will, Brexit and trump has taught us a few lessons I hope.
Sunday business post
56 yes
27 no
14 undecided
3 no response
Taken between 10th and 16th May

Foetus at 12 weeks is at very different stage to that at 20, that at 36 weeks. Claiming that they are the sames the point of process. Development.

The special position of the foetus is that it is completely dependent on the good will and health of a woman.

gmisk wrote: »

Latest referendum polls show the 'Yes' side is ahead as gap narrows http://jrnl.ie/4023304[/url

From that article

Catholic primate Archbishop Eamon Martin said in his latest message that to be against abortion is not simply “a Catholic thing”.

Martin appealed to voters to say no to repealing the Eighth Amendment “and then do everything you can to ensure that our country will always provide the best possible care and support for all mothers and their unborn children”.

In all honesty, do the catholic church think they have any standing in lecturing people about caring for all mothers and their unborn children? The organisation is farcical at this stage.

Watched a documentary on Hitler last night. Just thinking I might be voting for the legal slaughter of unwanted children.

Logo wrote: »

Watched a documentary on Hitler last night. Just thinking I might be voting for the legal slaughter of unwanted children.

That's what it boils down to.

erica74 wrote: »

Well you're not so don't worry about that.

Thanks for your answer but I was trying to be civil . If I vote yes then I will agree to the slaughter of children up to 6 months old without question

Logo wrote: »

Thanks for your answer but I was trying to be subtle. If I vote yes then I will agree to the slaughter of children up to 6 months old without question

6 month olds? What kind of insanity have you read to think this.

Just her wrote: »

Thanks a million for putting forward your answer to me, but can I just suggest that I don't feel that you covered what I consider the unique position of the foetus. You mentioned the sea slug as equivalent to a 12 week old foetus but the sea slug will develop no further. The sea slug is not on the verge of sentience ( To be honest I know nothing of sea slugs so correct me if I am wrong)

You say that further in the development of the foetus they should be afforded protection, but my point is that the foetus at 12 weeks is the same foetus at 20 weeks , 30 weeks, 35 weeks. The foetus at 12 weeks is on the verge of sentience whereas the sea slug is not.

I see the foetus as in a unique position and not to be put in the same category as sea slugs or anything else that doesn't development sentience. I know you are using sea slugs as an example but that's what I was getting at in my post to nozzferratto, what other life form is in that same position, on the verge of sentience, if any, and if there is none then its rights need to be considered uniquely , in my opinion

The discussion here is down to a weird type of teleology rather than the actual features of a 12 week old foetus. We seem to both be in agreement that the foetus at 12 weeks does not have the same characteristics as a fully formed human and that under no circumstances could be described as sentient.

However you're saying that it's purpose is to grow into a human being. That's what it's "telos", it's reason for existence, is.

Now before we dive into this is that what you're saying?

I put in a link to the wiki page about teleology. Read the intro and you'll have a good idea of what I mean when I use that word. I think it's pretty accurate. I promise I won't use any more philosophical terms. They're handy but there shouldn't be a need to and if you haven't got experience with classical western philosophy then all I'd be doing is showing off and making it harder for you to understand an argument.
The thing is that that we're talking about is a philosophical argument.

Logo wrote: »

Thanks for your answer but I was trying to be civil . If I vote yes then I will agree to the slaughter of children up to 6 months old without question

We aren’t voting on 6 month old children. They have already been born. We are voting on the 8th amendment and matters to do with embryos and foetuses. I know it’s confusing from the no posters - they do dishonestly portray born children and babies in their propaganda to try to push their agenda. What a way to confuse the electorate it should be and probably will be banned in the future. Don’t worry we can set people straight.