Irish Government violating the human rights of women

dashcamdanny wrote: »

That may be true. But do you actually know how an abortion is carried out?

This is a c&p of a page that explains.

Dilation and Extraction (D and X)
This abortion is also used on mid and late term babies, from 4 to 9 months gestation. Ultrasound is used to identify how the unborn baby is facing in the womb. The abortionist inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs, positioning the baby feet first, face down (breech position).

The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head which is too large to pass through the cervix. The baby is alive, and probably kicking and flailing his legs and arms. The abortionist hooks his fingers over the baby’s shoulders, holding the woman’s cervix away from the baby’s neck. He then jams blunt tipped surgical scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the tips apart to enlarge the wound.

A suction catheter is inserted into the baby’s skull and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses and the baby’s head passes easily through the cervix.

I know all about it. That's not say more humane applications with anaesthesia should not be used.

Do you know what happens to my guts when a blade slices it open and they push and dig to reach my uterus to get out the baby?

Will you be there with me when I'm 80 and caring for a mentally disabled adult?

Will you take in my son if I die of Septacemia? Pa for him, rear him, love him? Will you?

Will you pay for my c section ? 30 k. Will you pay for tjhe costs of raising my child?

Will you babysit? Will you nurse me through post partem depression?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should a woman be forced to give birth against her will?

My answer has always been, will always be - no.

Getting bogged down in arguing time frames and foetal development stages is focused more on the foetus IMO, than on the person who is actually carrying said foetus.

This is worth addressing separately to your nonsense above as you will find little disagreement with me here. I would just point out that the position I have espoused is not actually against this one, despite you making it sound like it is, but complimentary to it.

I would be entirely and wholly in agreement with the basis of your point. I too do not think any woman should be forced to do anything she does not with her body, including using it to give birth.

So when a woman is pregnant, and she does not want to give birth then we should be affording her every option to not do so that we coherently can. And termination of the fetus is one of those options.

But what your approach does not address is the simple fact that at SOME point the fetus gets rights too, including a right to life. So the things you simply want to dismiss and ignore become relevant at some point. And WHEN that point is becomes therefore an important point.

AFTER that point however, if a fetus has human rights and a right to life, then how is termination of it any less "murder" than me taking a new born and killing it? Any options we offer the woman in terms of terminations of her pregnancy therefore, for me, can not include termination of the Human Life, with Human Rights.

Anyone reading what you wrote would be forgiven for thinking that you would be happy to terminate the life of, say, a 36 week old developing child if it means the woman does not have to give birth. So at _some point_, wherever that point may be, you do have to get "bogged down" in the time frames and stages. Because at _some point_ the developing child reaches a point where it is equally deserving of our moral concerns and considerations.

So really I do not see one approach being "better" or "worse" than the other at all. Rather I think BOTH approaches are valid, BOTH have to be discussed, and BOTH have their caveats and conditions and relevancy that need to be explored in the discourse on the subject.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really do waffle on incessantly. The above is of no utility whatsoever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find your sanctimonious arrogance

Amazing how quickly you resort to your usual MO of dismissal when someone says something you can neither reply to nor rebut. It doesn't help discussion y'know.

Yet time and time again responses from you constitute nothing but you replying to large block of text, and posting some cop out dismissal to it, usually involving some uncalled for personal insults. It doesn't help discussion y'know.

This is _exactly_ what I was referring to when I mentioned observing your ability to defend your positions in the past. Thank you for proving my point so effectively.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not sure how useful statistics obtained from other countries where abortion has been legislated for, for decades, how useful are statistics from those countries in relation to Ireland where abortion isn't legislated for. I don't even understand how you came up with the figure of your tine limits satisfying 90% of women who are seeking abortions in Ireland at this time?

In an ideal world we would of course use statistics from our own country. Everyone knows that. You are stating the obvious in the hopes of getting a coherent point out now.

But when discussing or debating something for which we have no direct "home" statistics, there is always utility in looking to other countries to see the statistics and trends from implementing similar things there. Especially countries that have such a large influence on us and several parallels have existed in the past.

And as I have shown the figures from the US and the UK both show similar trends. in that 88-92% of abortions are happening in a time frames that are half that of what is currently allowed for in the laws there.

Which is very informative to someone who is arguing for abortion in this country. If people are worried about cut off, and it seems they are as it is always the question I get every time I argue pro-choice positions, then one quickly realizes that the lower the cut offs, the more people you are likely to win to your side. And vice versa.

So if a lower cut off not only satisfies the majority of demand, but also increases the likelyhood of people going with it, then I see every utility in arguing for one and using good statistics to back up that position.

lazygal wrote: »

Are the baby parts sold afterwards? By the abortionist?

You know. The whole subject might be a bit of a laugh for the you. Poking jokes and silly comments like that. .

But the subject deserves a bit more maturity.

Do you actually think a baby being aborted is something you can be sarcastic about?

dashcamdanny wrote: »

That may be true. But do you actually know how an abortion is carried out? The result is a brutally killed baby.

That would entirely depend on when you are killing it. If it is, say, before 14 weeks then there is no reason to think you are killing a conscious or subjectively aware entity at all. So how is that "brutal"? You would visit more subjective harm and suffering on the world by viciously pulling a handful of hair off the back of a cat, than you would by terminating a pregnancy at that stage.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would entirely depend on when you are killing it. If it is, say, before 14 weeks then there is no reason to think you are killing a conscious or subjectively aware entity at all. So how is that "brutal"? You would visit more subjective harm and suffering on the world by viciously pulling a handful of hair off the back of a cat, than you would by terminating a pregnancy at that stage.

You can't get an amino until 18 weeks. The cut off points are a distracting futile angle of this debate. Really dumb.

zeffabelli wrote: »

I know all about it. That's not say more humane applications with anaesthesia should not be used.

Do you know what happens to my guts when a blade slices it open and they push and dig to reach my uterus to get out the baby?

Will you be there with me when I'm 80 and caring for a mentally disabled adult?

Will you take in my son if I die of Septacemia? Pa for him, rear him, love him? Will you?

Will you pay for my c section ? 30 k. Will you pay for tjhe costs of raising my child?

Will you babysit? Will you nurse me through post partem depression?

I sat through 4 of my own childrens births 2 of which were sections which I was present in the theater for. I know well. Or at least better than most men or women who have not had a child yet. Im really not sure how many mothers die of Septicemia in Ireland these days. How many?

I was a happy time for both my partner and myself . To say it was not traumatic would be a lie. It was.

I as a tax payer will pay for a section. Thats how it works.

zeffabelli wrote: »

You can't get an amino until 18 weeks. The cut off points are a distracting futile angle of this debate. Really dumb.

The argument only has to be as good as the person it is addressing. The point of the post you replied to just now is not to argue cut offs, but to respond to someone that is describing abortion as "brutal". Please read my posts in the context of what they are replying to.

And my post that you replied to is simply pointing out that if you are terminating an entity that has no faculty of awareness or consciousness of ANY SORT then throwing out words like "brutal" is.... to use the kind of language you do..... "really dumb". The word simply is not applicable.

lazygal

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I sat through 4 of my own childrens births 2 of which were sections which I was present in the theater for. I know well. Or at least better than most men or women who have not had a child yet. Im really not sure how many mothers die of Septicemia in Ireland these days. How many?

I was a happy time for both my partner and myself . To say it was not traumatic would be a lie. It was.

I as a tax payer will pay for a section. Thats how it works.

I've had two sections myself. Does that mean I can mention selling baby parts and abortionists too?

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I sat through 4 of my own childrens births 2 of which were sections which I was present in the theater for. I know well. Or at least better than most men or women who have not had a child yet. Im really not sure how many mothers die of Septicemia in Ireland these days. How many?

I was a happy time for both my partner and myself . To say it was not traumatic would be a lie. It was.

I as a tax payer will pay for a section. Thats how it works.

And you know a woman can have a max of three before she puts herself medically in danger?

So I guess that's a no to the other questions.

And yet you want the law to force women to carry pregnancies and give birth. Typical.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would entirely depend on when you are killing it. If it is, say, before 14 weeks then there is no reason to think you are killing a conscious or subjectively aware entity at all. So how is that "brutal"? You would visit more subjective harm and suffering on the world by viciously pulling a handful of hair off the back of a cat, than you would by terminating a pregnancy at that stage.

I dont claim to know how to respond to that.

Would it be ok to pull apart and adult if he/she was not conscience?

If a premature baby moves 3" or 4" out of the mother's body and onto a table. Would it be OK to pull it apart on the table ?

I am very uneasy about the whole subject. I cant see any reasoning to justify the act other than very very exceptional circumstances.

I would imagine once the pro life side starts showing pictures of the results and the facts of the procedure, the majority of Ireland would agree with me somewhat.

lazygal

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I dont claim to know how to respond to that.

Would it be ok to pull apart and adult if he/she was not conscience?

If a premature baby moves 3" or 4" out of the mother's body and onto a table. Would it be OK to pull it apart on the table ?

I am very uneasy about the whole subject. I cant see any reasoning to justify the act other than very very exceptional circumstances.

I would imagine once the pro life side starts showing pictures of the results and the facts of the procedure, the majority of Ireland would agree with me somewhat.

Is it ok to travel to avail of these proceedures or should we vote to prevent women and girls from accessing all types of abortions? Would showing pictures of c sections, torn periniums and post partum bleeding for weeks help the prolife lobby too?

lazygal wrote: »

I've had two sections myself. Does that mean I can mention selling baby parts and abortionists too?

Really?? thats your argument.

Come on. grow up a bit.

lazygal

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Really?? thats your argument.

Come on. grow up a bit.

Hang on, you said you know more than posters who haven't had children. I've been through two pregnancies and sections. So why isn't my anecdotal argument as good as yours?

lazygal wrote: »

Hang on, you said you know more than posters who haven't had children. I've been through two pregnancies and sections. So why isn't my anecdotal argument as good as yours?

Because you're just a woman, with less inherent value than the baby you gestate. That's is why you can have kidney failure, surgery, infections etc... And it doesn't matter because your autonomy is secondary.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Because you're just a woman, with less inherent value than the baby you gestate. That's is why you can have kidney failure, surgery, infections etc... And it doesn't matter because your autonomy is secondary.

Again these things may be possible.

But on the other hand.

A baby's arms and legs get torn apart quite often and is killed 100% of the time.

Another factor which is overlooked quite frequently is the mental state of the father after the knowledge of his child's life being taken.

I don't expect to change your mind , but I really cant understand how you are comfortable with the outcome of such a horror show and the taking of an innocent little life.
Is there a compromise to be had? If so. What is it.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I dont claim to know how to respond to that. Would it be ok to pull apart and adult if he/she was not conscience?

I fear you have missed a point implicit in what I said, which might be my fault so allow me to make it explicit. The "adult" you speak of has the faculty of consciousness. It is a conscious entity to which we have afforded human rights. It might be unconscious at this time, but the faculty of consciousness exists in it.

A fetus at, say, 14 weeks is not unconscious. It HAS no consciousness. It does not even have the elements required to produce it. As in an earlier post I make an analogy to radio here. If radio waves are the consciousness, and the radio tower is what produces the radio waves..... in a fetus at, say, 14 weeks.... the radio tower has not even been built yet! And yet you are essentially showing concern for the radio waves it produces!

So there is no comparison between dismembering an adult human, and terminating a fetus. There is certainly no way to use the word "brutal" meaningfully in the case of the latter.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I am very uneasy about the whole subject. I cant see any reasoning to justify the act other than very very exceptional circumstances.

I do not blame you. As humans we appear to have very strong emotional and protective responses to our young and our youth. Especially babies. And the topic of abortion is therefore a highly emotive issue. So your uneasiness is very much warranted and when coming down on one side or another of the abortion debate.... one should be VERY sure they understand the facts and arguments.

I was just as uneasy as you. I went through a lot of life feeling very iffy about abortion and staying away from it as a subject entirely. But then I started doing the research and thinking deeply on the issue. And given the faculty of consciousness does not exist in the fetus.... nor even the pre-requisites for it to exist at all............ at certain stages of development........ I see no reason therefore, and no argument, to worry morally about it at those stages. Or to worry about its "rights" or it feeling or experiencing pain or suffering. Quite simply there is no reason for any of this to be a concern, and you can put your unease to rest.

Now AS the fetus develops.... 20 weeks..... 25 weeks.... 30 weeks.... and so on.... your concerns and unease become more warranted. We can not even say with strong confidence when our fears and unease should kick in. We can not say "28 weeks good, 29 weeks bad".

So I share your unease in many places. But there are ALSO many places for which the unease is simply not warranted any more.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I would imagine once the pro life side starts showing pictures of the results and the facts of the procedure, the majority of Ireland would agree with me somewhat.

I can only hope not. Because the pictures are clearly unpleasant. But people should know the facts behind those pictures, and not vote on the pictures alone. Alas what I have seen in the past is that the anti abortion crowd do not use such pictures to highlight the arguments or preface them..... but to entirely replace them. Because they _have_ no arguments so they rely on you having a gut emotional reaction instead.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is worth addressing separately to your nonsense above as you will find little disagreement with me here. I would just point out that the position I have espoused is not actually against this one, despite you making it sound like it is, but complimentary to it.

I wasn't trying to make it sound like our positions were incompatible. We just use different standards is all. Yours are based upon arbitrary time limits that regard the unborn as a valid stakeholder in this discussion. Mine are not. Mine are based solely upon a woman's ability to determine her own choices for herself with regard to her pregnancy.

I would be entirely and wholly in agreement with the basis of your point. I too do not think any woman should be forced to do anything she does not with her body, including using it to give birth.

So when a woman is pregnant, and she does not want to give birth then we should be affording her every option to not do so that we coherently can. And termination of the fetus is one of those options.

But what your approach does not address is the simple fact that at SOME point the fetus gets rights too, including a right to life. So the things you simply want to dismiss and ignore become relevant at some point. And WHEN that point is becomes therefore an important point.

That arbitrary point in Irish law currently confers a right to life on an embryo upon implantation. That embryo has an equal right to life as the woman in whom it is implanted. I'm not dismissing or ignoring it, but you're right, I do consider arguments based upon specified time frames in the development of an unborn being are completely and utterly irrelevant, because anything, anything can happen to that unborn being within that time frame between conception and birth, so assigning rights to an unborn being at any point, before they are even born, has always been problematic for me personally.

AFTER that point however, if a fetus has human rights and a right to life, then how is termination of it any less "murder" than me taking a new born and killing it? Any options we offer the woman in terms of terminations of her pregnancy therefore, for me, can not include termination of the Human Life, with Human Rights.

The only right I'm aware of in Irish legislation that the unborn has, is the right to life. By repealing the 8th amendment, the unborn life no longer takes precedence over a woman's human rights. We can then terminate unborn life at any point while it is still unborn.

Anyone reading what you wrote would be forgiven for thinking that you would be happy to terminate the life of, say, a 36 week old developing child if it means the woman does not have to give birth. So at _some point_, wherever that point may be, you do have to get "bogged down" in the time frames and stages. Because at _some point_ the developing child reaches a point where it is equally deserving of our moral concerns and considerations.

I wouldn't be happy about terminating the life of an unborn child at any point tbh, but those points are irrelevant because of my already stated position that a woman should not be forced to continue her pregnancy, nor to give birth, if she does not want to, and therefore by that standard, the only point which remains relevant is the point at which she would be forced to continue her pregnancy and give birth against her will. My moral concerns and considerations aren't limited to a specific time frame. I am more concerned with the moral considerations and concerns of the woman who is pregnant and does not want to be, and does not want to give birth. Your argument is akin to "8th amendment lite".

So really I do not see one approach being "better" or "worse" than the other at all. Rather I think BOTH approaches are valid, BOTH have to be discussed, and BOTH have their caveats and conditions and relevancy that need to be explored in the discourse on the subject.

My argument is solely focused on the human rights of the woman who is pregnant, and solely focused on her human right to bodily autonomy. That right supersedes any perceived rights you would like to assign to an unborn life based upon time limits that you're comfortable with which suit your personal morality.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Again these things may be possible.

But on the other hand.

A baby's arms and legs get torn apart quite often and is killed 100% of the time.

Another factor which is overlooked quite frequently is the mental state of the father after the knowledge of his child's life being taken.

I don't expect to change your mind , but I really cant understand how you are comfortable with the outcome of such a horror show and the taking of an innocent little life.
Is there a compromise to be had? If so. What is it.

I'm not a pacifist so I don't know how you think this will convince me its ok to legally force women to go through birth and pregnancy.

Comfotable, no, but there is no perfect answer here. Ultimately, I have to sympathise with the autonomy of the mother.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't trying to make it sound like our positions were incompatible. We just use different standards is all. Yours are based upon arbitrary time limits that regard the unborn as a valid stakeholder in this discussion. Mine are not.

Regardless of whether it was your intention to make it sound that way or not, it certainly is a valid reading of how you wrote it. So I see utility in making explicit where the positions are complimentary and where not.

And there is nothing "arbitrary" about how I have chosen my time limits. I have chosen them for very explicit, very detailed reasons. And depending on when the developing entity attains human rights very much does determine when it becomes a "stakeholder" in the discussion. You can not simply ignore that to make it go away.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mine are based solely upon a woman's ability to determine her own choices for herself with regard to her pregnancy.

As are mine, so do not pretend otherwise at any point lest you descend into error. I very much believe in the right of ALL people to do what they want with their body.

But this also has to scale with the rights of anyone those decisions affect. And if it is the case that one can argue morally that at some point in the development the entity attains human rights.... then from that point on wards the free choice of the woman to do what she wants freely with her body, does start to become relevant to the other.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so assigning rights to an unborn being at any point, before they are even born, has always been problematic for me personally.

I have no doubt it is problematic. But it being problematic also would not warrant throwing ones hands up and not assigning it, or acknowledging its, rights. The problem does not simply go away because you have a well meant ideal about bodily freedom.

Clearly at SOME point in the life cycle of the human there is a point when we have to say "This entity now has human rights including the right to life" and yes, that is a deep philosophical and problematic discussion to have. And one that is not going to go away because it makes your simplistic approach simpler. I certainly see no intellectual or philosophical coherence in a position that say.... to give a random example..... "The day before birth it has no rights and the day after suddenly it has them all".

So that discussion has to be had, and a philosophically sensible place to assign rights has to be found, and if that point ends up being during pre-birth development.... then like it or not the discussion is relevant and not the red herring you want to pretend it to be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can then terminate unborn life at any point while it is still unborn.

And that is not only not what I would want, but it is not what I would want to sell to the Irish people whatever vote comes before them. Because that is exactly what the anti side will tell the public. "Vote yes to this change and people will be allowed murder unborn babies 24 hours before their scheduled birth date". I am not sure how many people are going to be ok with that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am more concerned with the moral considerations and concerns of the woman who is pregnant and does not want to be, and does not want to give birth. Your argument is akin to "8th amendment lite".

I share those concerns. But IF there is another moral entity in the equation I have to have concerns for it too. Yours, not mine, is the lazy position here. Philosophically, morally, and intellectually. Because you are simply deleting and ignoring all moral concerns for one entity to satisfy the ideal of giving total autonomy to another.

Now if you could construct an argument for why we should HAVE no moral concerns for.... say.... the 35 week old entity then your position would become useful. But simply ignoring them due to their incompatibility with the ideal you want to hold on to.... is not. There ARE good arguments for having moral concerns for it at that age.... not just intellectually.... but you would have to publicly overcome the emotional ones the majority of people appear to have.

My position however addresses ALL of that. It shows and highlights the fact that before 12 weeks (actually I could argue well up to 26 for sound scientific reasons but it is superfluous to my needs) the fetal entity simply is not worthy of moral concern or rights. And I can educate and argue at length for why that is. So I can sell my position and defend it while you are sitting there simply saying "Oh no, ignore THAT bit for me please, just pay attention to this bit over here......."

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My argument is solely focused on the human rights of the woman who is pregnant

Then it would be useful to unpack exactly how, when and why you think we assign someone or something "Human Rights". What are you hanging it off and why?

It would appear, forgive if I am wrong but this is the only reading of your posts I can see, that you think "being born" is the focal point you hang it off. As if mere spacial positioning is a useful hanging point for rights. "It has no rights here but move it 6 inches in this direction and WOW look full human rights!!!". Nonsense. So what ARE you hanging it off?

Because as I see it you are right, your argument does SOLELY focus on the human rights of one entity, while simply dismissing it in the other. And you even appear to think that to be a good thing for reasons that remain entirely opaque to me.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then it would be useful to unpack exactly how, when and why you think we assign someone or something "Human Rights". What are you hanging it off and why?

It would appear, forgive if I am wrong but this is the only reading of your posts I can see, that you think "being born" is the focal point you hang it off. As if mere spacial positioning is a useful hanging point for rights. "It has no rights here but move it 6 inches in this direction and WOW look full human rights!!!". Nonsense. So what ARE you hanging it off?

Because as I see it you are right, your argument does SOLELY focus on the human rights of one entity, while simply dismissing it in the other. And you even appear to think that to be a good thing for reasons that remain entirely opaque to me.

It's not a mere movement of spatial positioning six inches one way or the other. The point at which that unborn life passes through the birth canal alive is the point at which human rights should be conferred, because as I pointed out earlier - anything can happen to the unborn life within the womb and that's how we end up with a situation where medical staff are attempting to keep decomposing human remains intact in order to support the life of the unborn.

You're actually making this more complicated than it needs to be with your arguing about philosophy and statistics and so on, in an attempt to sell what is at best, merely a compromise for a woman who finds herself pregnant and she does not want to be, and if the term of her pregnancy falls outside your specified guidelines, then she would be prohibited from availing of an abortion.

That's not pro-choice when the small print includes terms and conditions attached with regard to the unborn which is yet to be born before we can confer human rights upon them. The only right that applies before the unborn is born, is the right to life. The unborn should have no automatic right to life IMO, because in practical terms that right would continue to be used to supercede the rights of the woman in whose uterus the unborn is allowed to continue to develop.

That's why I'm suggesting that as far as the constitution goes, our aim should be to repeal the 8th amendment, and that would then pave the way to allow for legislation to be introduced which you could then introduce your arguments about philosophy and statistics and terms and conditions.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a mere movement of spatial positioning six inches one way or the other. The point at which that unborn life passes through the birth canal alive is the point at which human rights should be conferred

Then despite you saying that it is not "mere movement of spatial positioning" the fact is.... that it is very much exactly that. In fact straight away your position is a nonsense given how many births do not happen through the birth canal. Heard of C-Section have you not?

Anything can happen to it within the womb? So what? Anything can happen to me _right now_ and I still have rights. Anything can happen to the baby _just after_ birth but according to you it has rights.

So no, declaring a baby has no rights right up to the moment just before birth, but then suddenly magically has them.... is as much nonsense as it is internally inconsistent.

It appears to be born of absolutely nothing coherent except a very human desire to have a clear, intellectually easy, line in the sand to cling on to. And sheer comedy therefore comes from you presuming to describe the positions of others as "arbitrary". That is a very old pot calling a brand new stainless steel kettle black.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're actually making this more complicated than it needs to be with your arguing about philosophy and statistics

No, you are pretending it is less complicated than it actually is by ignoring all that stuff in favor of simply having positions on the issue that you could fit into a fortune cookie. It is head in the sand stuff from you and little more.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if the term of her pregnancy falls outside your specified guidelines, then she would be prohibited from availing of an abortion.

Yes because, as I said, I am looking at the moral concerns of all parties concerned rather than simply sticking my head in the sand on one, in order to maintain a simplistic one size fits all solution for another.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not pro-choice when the small print includes terms and conditions attached

You are under a very erroneous illusion that "pro choice" means being pro any choice, anyone wants to make, in any case, any time. All choices have limitations. It is not one extreme or another.... full choice or no choice at all. That is a fantasy world you would be living in to espouse that.

Your nonsense would be like me saying "I think you have the right to put your fist where you want... but of course not at speed into the face of another" and you replying saying "Ah you do not think they have the rights to do what they want with their fist _at all_ then because look at you with your terms and conditions".

Choices have limitations, that does not mean one is against choice. I am 100% pro abortion choice when the fetus is at a stage where it simply does not have any moral concerns for us. It has no human rights.

When it TOO has human rights however, then I am going to incorporate that into my discourse. Our choices as humans are always mediated by their impact on other moral beings other than ourselves.

seamus

Nodin wrote: »

Pointless **** designed to kick this into touch.

I actually disagree entirely.

The problem here is that the two extremes in this case are not feasible;

- Don't change the constitution. Not possible, for so many reasons, legal and ethical.

- Repeal the 8th entirely. Legally do-able but an impossible referendum to win. Far too easy for the anti-human right wing nutjobs to invent scare stories about freshly-aborted-baby-part-vendors on every street corner and fallacies about 38-week pregnancies being thrown in the bin right, left and centre.

People are very motivated by fear. And the religious fundies are really good at creating fear - it's what religion is based on.
A "repeal the 8th" referendum will not win. Despite the victory in gay rights, the abortion question is a whole other beast. If the referendum got called today for a straight repeal, I'd stick my money on a no despite hoping for a yes.

A citizen's convention should, in theory, allow a government to get a sense of what the actual issues are. You have the debates beforehand, get an idea of what people's fears and worries are about the amendment, then you rewrite it to ensure those fears are allayed.

It worked for the marriage equality amendment - the text itself was beyond ambiguity, there was no wiggle room in it for the fearmongerers to claim it would lead to anything except marriage equality.

The straight repeal won't work. It will have to be replaced with an amendment that addresses the big issues, without leaving gaps for people to spin nonsense "what-if" scenarios where women use abortion as contraception.

Most likely any proposed amendment will be written in such a way that it won't be possible to abort after 18 or 20 weeks unless the child has a fatal foetal abnormality, and even then to require sign off from more than one doctor to confirm that the child's chance of survival outside of the womb is non-existent.

How you frame that in a constitution is something else entirely. If this were a rational debate, you would remove it from the constitution and put it entirely in law, but it's not a rational debate.

kowloon

Screaming lunatics, from both sides, are going to drown out the voices of everyone else. For a lot of people on the fence, it'll be more a case of which side is most off-putting than which is most convincing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fear you have missed a point implicit in what I said, which might be my fault so allow me to make it explicit. The "adult" you speak of has the faculty of consciousness. It is a conscious entity to which we have afforded human rights. It might be unconscious at this time, but the faculty of consciousness exists in it.

A fetus at, say, 14 weeks is not unconscious. It HAS no consciousness. It does not even have the elements required to produce it. As in an earlier post I make an analogy to radio here. If radio waves are the consciousness, and the radio tower is what produces the radio waves..... in a fetus at, say, 14 weeks.... the radio tower has not even been built yet! And yet you are essentially showing concern for the radio waves it produces!

So there is no comparison between dismembering an adult human, and terminating a fetus. There is certainly no way to use the word "brutal" meaningfully in the case of the latter.

I do not blame you. As humans we appear to have very strong emotional and protective responses to our young and our youth. Especially babies. And the topic of abortion is therefore a highly emotive issue. So your uneasiness is very much warranted and when coming down on one side or another of the abortion debate.... one should be VERY sure they understand the facts and arguments.

I was just as uneasy as you. I went through a lot of life feeling very iffy about abortion and staying away from it as a subject entirely. But then I started doing the research and thinking deeply on the issue. And given the faculty of consciousness does not exist in the fetus.... nor even the pre-requisites for it to exist at all............ at certain stages of development........ I see no reason therefore, and no argument, to worry morally about it at those stages. Or to worry about its "rights" or it feeling or experiencing pain or suffering. Quite simply there is no reason for any of this to be a concern, and you can put your unease to rest.

Now AS the fetus develops.... 20 weeks..... 25 weeks.... 30 weeks.... and so on.... your concerns and unease become more warranted. We can not even say with strong confidence when our fears and unease should kick in. We can not say "28 weeks good, 29 weeks bad".

So I share your unease in many places. But there are ALSO many places for which the unease is simply not warranted any more.

I can only hope not. Because the pictures are clearly unpleasant. But people should know the facts behind those pictures, and not vote on the pictures alone. Alas what I have seen in the past is that the anti abortion crowd do not use such pictures to highlight the arguments or preface them..... but to entirely replace them. Because they _have_ no arguments so they rely on you having a gut emotional reaction instead.

Fantastic post. And one I can very much learn from.

Maybe the case that should be, if it is allowed, when is the cut off point where the mother (or anyone else) will no longer be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.
When the baby can sense pain or have a survival instinct? Is this even known?

And if pro choice manage to get this passed, what's to stop them chipping away at it till they allow a mother to terminate a full term baby? I know there is probably those who would have no problem with that.