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

DOS wrote: »

Your health care is secure and safe in Ireland Susie. Tragedies like Savita occur. That's life. In all aspects of health care things go wrong. We have to think beyond the individual to the overall welfare of the community.

What level of collateral damage caused by the 8th is acceptable?

Can you put a number on how many women dying because of the 8th is "worth it"?

What will you say to their grieving relatives?

Cabaal wrote: »

Hitler actually ensured abortion was restricted in germany for german citizens,

But good job godwin'ing the discussion

We're talking about IRISH citizens giving women in Ireland the rights to have control over their bodies. ZIP to do with Hitler

Thanks for the input. I honestly thought that next Friday's referendum was for human rights - apologies if I got it wrong

igCorcaigh wrote: »

It depends on the alternatives. You're seeing this as an abstract moral question. In reality, it never is. The alternative could be death for the mother (which has happened) or suffering and eventual death of the baby.

+1

I get the impression that some of the more articulate posters here on the No side are doing this. It's all very cerebral and abstract. The real world is a lot messier.

However it's the real world we have to legislate for.

gandalf wrote: »

I see you selectively quoted me. I have already said that I find abortion abhorrent and in an ideal world it would not exist but we don't live in an ideal world.

I find forcing women to carry a foetus to term when they don't want a child, it effects their health, is the result of rape or incest is abhorrent and I find people who avocate this to be completely lacking any sort of empathy at all.

Yes, I quoted only the parts I was addressing. So everything is abhorrent. And the relatively rare cases of incest (what has this got to do with anything?) and rape somehow warrant introducing a liberal abortion regime. I disagree - there is a sickening inappetite to separate issues of supposedly utmost concern from abortions for all. These are being highlighted and, at the height of hypocrisy, used as a stick to beat No supporters with. I'm not buying it though - Yes voters should accept the blood on their hands which may result.

Is there any chance that posters might extract themselves from religious and other ideologies. Next Friday you will be asked if you agree to allow abortion of a fetus without question from a girls body, and also to the murder of a six month old baby

Logo wrote: »

Is there any chance that posters might extract themselves from religious and other ideologies. Next Friday you will be asked if you agree to allow abortion of a fetus without question from a girls body, and also to the murder of a six month old baby

Next Friday you are _not_ being asked if you agree to the murder of a six month old baby.

DOS wrote: »

Your health care is secure and safe in Ireland Susie. Tragedies like Savita occur. That's life. In all aspects of health care things go wrong. We have to think beyond the individual to the overall welfare of the community.

And that quote could be used word for word for a pro choice stance, in 2 parts.

1. In all aspects of health care things go wrong. - As such, the best course of action is for the medical professionals to have access to all forms of medical intervention. And yes, this includes ending a pregnancy, in favour of the mother.

2. We have to think beyond the individual to the overall welfare of the community. - So why is the individual child more important than the person already in the community, with bonds already formed, people that will be affected by their death or ill health, and the possibility of having future children negated by death or ill health. Personally, I'd rather have my wife alive, healthy and happy (given that she may have just terminated a pregnancy) than my wife sick or dead, with a child to look after. I can see how I benefit, how my wife benefits, how the potential children benefit, how the community at large benefits with my choice. Please let me know how they benefit with yours.

Junadl wrote: »

I've been banned as a No poster for asking if someone would perform an abortion themselves. They don't want a No input on this thread. I have looked at past pages and others have been banned.

The bottom line is you cannot take a life. Your own childs life. Just because you don't want the baby doesn't make it any less than a wanted baby.

Women CAN do that. They have a Constitutional right to do it. Just not in Ireland.

If the 8th is retained, do you want to see punishment enforced for breaking it?

Logo wrote: »

Is there any chance that posters might extract themselves from religious and other ideologies. Next Friday you will be asked if you agree to allow abortion of a fetus without question from a girls body, and also to the murder of a six month old baby

So many face palms going on in response to this post. Folks, we aren’t voting to murder babies. If you don’t know this you shouldn’t really vote. If you keep saying a lie it doesn’t make it true logo.

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Hi Grayson,

Thanks again for your reply.

I'd just like to say first that the sentient argument if you would call it that, is what I'm talking about here yes, but I wouldn't like anyone to take from my post that sentience is all that I believe comes into it when it comes to abortion. I seen it come up in others posts as a sort of justification on their behalf , if that's the right word, for abortion, so I wanted to explore it further.

I don't know the exact point where a foetus becomes sentient , I'm not sure anyone does, I've seen it argued at different points online but maybe someone else here knows the exact point.

I read through your link on teleos, thanks for that, but further down in the link it says this:

In modern science, explanations that rely on teleology are often, but not always, avoided, either because they are unnecessary or because whether they are true or false is thought to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[12] But using teleology as an explanatory style, in particular within evolutionary biology, is still controversial.[19]

So apart from the above I wouldn't feel qualified to talk on teleos from reading the link, to say whether or not it is teleos that is relevant to my point, as I've never come across the word before.


Hmmm. I don't know if I can explain any better what I'm trying to say.

Basically sentience for a lot of life forms is life long. A plant or sea slug does not and will never become sentient.

A foetus if allowed continue its life will become sentient in a short space of time.

So I don't see that the two can be treated the same as regards assigning rights, specifically the right to life. The foetus/developing baby is uniquely different to any other life form and more value needs to be given to them and their right to life than other forms of life such as mentioned above, in my opinion.

Just to expand, the original point made by the poster was that they had considered how we attach value to life , and that they thought that sentience was the best way/ only good way of doing so.(open to correction from.poster) But I don't believe it is sufficiently thought through when the developing sentience of a foetus is not identical to any other of the life forms under their consideration to which they made their comparison.