Abortion Discussion

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't agree. The entire genome, the DNA is there right from the moment of inception. The code that makes you is all there (after that it's just nurture, the nature has been done). The only difference between pre birth and post birth is that pre birth requires a womb to help the cells to grow to a certain stage.

But all that information exists before conception as well. Even if this was not the case, your DNA does not define you as a person: if this was not so, we would treat twins as two instances of the same person. This is simply not the case.

It is tempting to pick conception as the beginning of personhood because it has a pleasing neatness to it, but I am afraid it is still more or less an arbitrary point in the human reproductive cycle.

aloyisious wrote: »

Sure isn't that what's troubling the minds of some of our RCC fellow-citizens, the RCC telling the faithful and others that the rights of their fellow-citizens are trumped by it's rules, that Rome-rule is the primary law here?

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

Balmed Out wrote: »

It's just when you consider a life a life

Well, no, because there are lots of situations where the anti-choice people do not consider a fetus a human life.

How many of them think IVF treatment is mass murder? Not many.

So, a lot less than a human life at conception, a bit less at 8 weeks, roughly one human life at viability after 24 weeks (or whenever).

More or less what I think, yet I am pro-choice.

I'm not talking about any organisations, nut jobs on both sides of the equation. All I'm saying is that you're average person is neither pro death or anti choice. People just don't believe in murder. If a person believes the unborn is a life at conception, 8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months or full term then that person is against abortion from that time. Religion, domain over a woman's body etc etc are not for most the actual reason for their opinion.

lazygal wrote: »

I'm still waiting to hear from all the anti choicers who are atheists as well.

Why?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Name me a single pro-choice nutjob. Please, because I keep hearing about them, but people clam up the minute I ask to be shown one.

It is clear the anti-abortion side is chock full of them, willing to go as far as murder to force their ideologies on others, but I've never seen the pro-choice side of the argument getting violent.

I agree there is more on the anti side but if you look logically at what people on both sides believe its easy to see why. These people think the foetus = a person so abortion = murder. Many are complete sicko nut jobs but a quick google will tell you there are those on both sides.
Look up dr. gosnell, the bombing of the 40 days for life prayer vigil etc.

Regardless its all irrelevant to the debate which should be when is a life a life and not the pro death anti choice moronic nonsense.

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

Umm, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that we debate here whether Pro-side reps should just decline any invite to talk at an Anti-side rep, or maybe sit & thumb-twiddle, on the grounds that a debate was pointless. Should i imagine there is an inference that that is what we are doing here?...... oh, maybe I shouldn't ask that! :eek:

It'd be a novel approach for a TV debate - imagine's the presenter having a meltdown, plus look of stunned realization on the face of the Anti rep. Surely you're not, you cannot be serious?

SW wrote: »

I'm sure Iona have one in cyro next to their token gay guy who doesn't want to be married :P

I remember Breda saying on Marian Finucaine, during her interview on national radio when she also claimed she was being silenced, that non believers send donations to the Iona Institute, which promotes religion.

irishpancake wrote: »

A Constitution is no place to attempt to resolve complicated moral and legal issues.

What is the constitution for?
It is to protect people from a government with an overall majority enacting crazy legislation that is out of kilter with the citizens,

Therefore it is the place to give the unborn rights if you believe in that is important.

lazygal wrote: »

I'm still waiting to hear from all the anti choicers who are atheists as well.

I am atheist / agnostic / non religious and would be against abortion. Not all forms thou. Rape = ok. Fetal abnormality resulting in death = ok. Suicide = ok. Legal on the basis that back street abortions are worse because both woman and child die.

Against, drive by abortion on demand, as a form of contraception, because the child is gay, has asthma, someone more interested in their career etc.

It is better we make it as strict - only in certain cases - form of abortion like we did with divorce.

Cabaal wrote: »

But the people organizations that very heavily lobbied this don't reflect what people actually wanted back then and certainly don't reflect what people want now.

Lets look at them shall we

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/why-ireland-became-the-only-country-in-the-democratic-world-to-have-a-constitutional-ban-on-abortion-1.1907610



The call to establish the PLAC was by John O’Reilly, to show you how backward and twisted this man and the organizations he got together lets look at history



Of course this backwards view continued to be an issue in Ireland until the early 90's when Virgin Megastores got fined for selling condoms. Fined, for selling condoms. Its laughable now, yet if these people had their way they would have had contraception banned outright if they could have.



That shows just how out of touch these views are, they do not represent the people of Ireland then and they certainly don't know.

You are going off the point. The idea is the constitution is only amended / changed by referendum. Whereas other legislation is amended to by the government.

So, let's say we have a referendum on gay marriage and it passes. Then Lucidena Crieghton comes in with an overall majority she can't change that and take away their rights without another referendum.

A lot of the constitution is out of date and irrelevant but some of it is still important.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Rape = ok.

That could maybe have been phrased a tad better...

Legal on the basis that back street abortions are worse because both woman and child die.

And you think that only in the cases you mention are back-street/pills off t'internet abortions likely?

Against, drive by abortion on demand, as a form of contraception, because the child is gay, has asthma, someone more interested in their career etc.

It is better we make it as strict - only in certain cases - form of abortion like we did with divorce.

You're setting out two almost caricatured extremes, missing out everything in the middle (such as "on grounds of mother's health" being the big 'un), and proposing the model that the state micromanage what "choices" are allowed. That's going to be a particular legal nightmare if you intend to embed said tweaking in the constitution.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. You destroy all cells when you abort. You only destroy a percentage when you exfoliate. You also destroy the DNA. You don't do this when you exfoliate.

By this sort of back-of-cereal-packet philosophy, if you shoot one of two living adult identical twins, you're not "really" committing murder.

Cabaal wrote: »

Think you'll find any pro-choice person you speak to is more then happy to put this matter to a vote, I've not met so many anti-choice people that are so welcoming of putting it to a vote though.

Only thing stopping it going to a vote is political party's kicking the can down the road each time. Just like what happened with marriage equality.,

I would be anti some choices but happy enough to see a referendum

lazygal wrote:

What's a drive by abortion? Why do some women have to remain pregnant against their wishes because of different conception circumstances?.

Something getting pregnant not giving a sh8t, getting an abortion and not giving a sh*t either.

Why do some women have to remain pregnant against their wishes because of different conception circumstances?.

In some cases women have to have abortions and it might be against their wishes. Some Indian women who are performing surrogacy for Irish people have triplets and they abort one.

Why do they have three? Well they fertilize up to three eggs in the hope that at least one becomes healthy and develops not because they want three children. Then abort one later in the pregnancy because they don't want three kids.

Crazy stuff.

I believe the fetus is more than just a bunch of cells. Just like many people including me - and I am sure you - believe a baby is a human.

There are many couples who can't conceive. They cannot even get to the point where the sperm and egg conceive and form a zygote no matter how hard they try. That moment is something special and should be regarded as such.

Also, the DNA from that moment is formed. The personality, the physical make up, you name it is all there in the plan. It just requires for the womb (or a womb before it can continue on its own).

That's the only difference.