Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

Martypants1 wrote: »

Yup, she accepts these standard child birth risks once she lets a man up on her.

Then why do you accept abortion if both parties are agreed? They both made that initial decision together, both accepted the risks at the time of intercourse. You either believe that decision is binding throughout the pregnancy or you don't.

If you do consider it binding, then your version of abortion is disallowed and our conversation is over.

If not, and if you accept abortion on condition that both parties agree, that means you do not consider the acceptance of risk at intercourse to be binding throughout the pregnancy.

That therefore means it is acceptable to reassess the risks during pregnancy and make another decision.

In that event, it is possible for the woman to conclude the balance of risks is no longer acceptable, and the man to disagree.

Who takes legal responsibility in that scenario if there is injury or death?

lazygal wrote: »

So it's ok for 12 women a day to leave Ireland to kill children. Gotcha.

Well its not happening on the soil I live on nor is my tax money funding it. Its not ok that its happening but there isn't going to be anything done about it so the situation now is better than the alternative of it being allowed to happen here.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Well its not happening on the soil I live on nor is my tax money funding it.

So that makes the killing of 12 unborn children today ok, the main thing is it isn't happening here.

lazygal wrote: »

So that makes the killing of 12 unborn children today ok, the main thing is it isn't happening here.

Read the piece I added to my post.

t's not ok but its still better than it happening here.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nozz wants to know why you consider an unborn child to be equal to a born one? Given that they are measurably different kinds of human?

Because its just wrong to me, its not something that can be explained when I think of it it disgusts me and I can't understand why its allowed to happen anywhere and want it kept from our country if possible.

We do not write laws based on your disgust. But thank you for clarifying the basis. It is invalid.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Why aren't they equal , why is denying an unborn child the right to be born any different from ending the life of a one year old?

Because one has bodily autonomy and the other does not. One can walk and the other cannot. One has a year of learning and memories and connections with the world and people and the other does not. One can continue living without necessitating being born from a woman in the future, with all the connected risks, and the other cannot.

They are not equal because they are not equal.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Read the piece I added to my post.

t's not ok but its still better than it happening here.

Gosh, with 12 children a day being killed I thought you'd want something done about this, but evidently once we don't allow it on our soil that's the main thing.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Then why do you accept abortion if both parties are agreed? They both made that initial decision together, both accepted the risks at the time of intercourse. You either believe that decision is binding throughout the pregnancy or you don't.

If you do consider it binding, then your version of abortion is disallowed and our conversation is over.

If not, and if you accept abortion on condition that both parties agree, that means you do not consider the acceptance of risk at intercourse to be binding throughout the pregnancy.

That therefore means it is acceptable to reassess the risks during pregnancy and make another decision.

In that event, it is possible for the woman to conclude the balance of risks is no longer acceptable, and the man to disagree.

Who takes legal responsibility in that scenario if there is injury or death?

I already said I agree with abortion when the man and woman agrees to it.

The balance of risk isn't decided by the woman, it should be decided by a medical professional who actually knows the risks.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One can walk and the other cannot. One has a year of learning and memories and connections with the world and people and the other does not.

They are not equal because they are not equal.

By this logic killing a 1 year old is less of a crime than killing a 10 year old.

Martypants1 wrote: »

I already said I agree with abortion when the man and woman agrees to it.

The balance of risk isn't decided by the woman, it should be decided by a medical professional who actually knows the risks.

You're going in circles. Your answers contradict one another completely.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're going in circles. Your answers contradict one another completely.

No they're not.

I can't make it much simpler for you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Really are you really writing a big paragraph about "ending life" when its so blatantly obvious what I mean, I actually have work for doing rather than answering questions with the most obvious answers possible.

I think you just made my point for me here because yes it WAS obvious what you mean. Which is why I pre-empted it with my Human DNA comment for example. I read what you wrote and THINK I know where you are going with it. And I have been down that road enough 100s of times to know where it ends up. So I can skip ahead and ask pertinent questions to tease out your position and........

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

someone could knowingly end the life of a child without even giving it a chance at life I just can't get my head around.

......... I was not wrong in my predictions. You are going down the exact road I suspected and expected. You are offering not an intellectual argument but an emotional linguistic one. I am not decrying emotion by any means but it is not coherent as an argument.

But all I am seeing is you being emotionally invested in the word "baby". At the same time likely reacting negatively to the terms that put boundaries on valid and relevant uses of the term "baby" such as "fetus".

Emotions aside when we are looking at a developing fetus at age 16 weeks we are not coherently talking about a "baby" here. We are talking about a biological step in the human life cycle. And not just any step, but a step that lacks not just some, but ALL markers of anything even remotely related to consciousness and sentience. We are talking about a blob of biological matter here.

I apologize in advance if I am mis-characterizing your views with the following: But it seems to me you look at that blob of bio matter and are not seeing what is there, but are instead seeing the potential of all the things that that blob COULD be. My entire position is mediated by what is there, yours on equivocating on what potentially might be. And never the twain shall.... or even can.... meet.

And I fear if I have characterized you correctly therefore that we could never have an intellectual meeting of minds on this. Because I see no basis whatsoever for affording a blob of bio matter, lacking all faculties and facilities of human consciousness and sentience, human rights. Nor do I see a basis for basing the rights of CURRENT human beings, such as the mother, on potentials rather than what IS the reality.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Because its just wrong to me, its not something that can be explained when I think of it it disgusts me and I can't understand why its allowed to happen anywhere

And while I respect and admire your passion and emotion, I simply can not work with it in terms of communication or intellect. I can see clearly why you are emotional about it based on some erroneous moves you are making emotionally at the expense of intellect. But there comes a time when I feel people should look past their emotions and discuss, even if only introspectively and internally, whether there is an intellectually justifiable basis for their emotions on a subject.

And I think basically here you admit this is something you can not, or will not, do. You are basically saying above that your disgust precludes you from engaging with the topic intellectually.

I guess to answer the thread topic therefore, the probability of a referendum passing on the subject hangs strongly from how many people we can reach intellectually past their emotional shielding. I merely feel you are not going to be one of those people.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Why aren't they equal , why is denying an unborn child the right to be born any different from ending the life of a one year old?

I think you will find my own posts not just answer that question directly, but do so at some length. It is not so much we are "denying" the fetus rights, as it is that there is no coherent and cogent basis for even affording them that right in the first place.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

At the end of the day neither will see their 2 birthday or their 5th birthday.

Neither will the millions of children who would have been born had their parents chosen not to use contraception. So this consequentialist argument you make is not really that relevant or coherent either.

Because if you measure the morality of abortion based on the existence or non-existence of a POTENTIAL 5 year old child who OTHERWISE would be alive and well and enjoying life......... then contraception is no better or worse than abortion because there are any number of 1000s of 5 year olds who are NOT alive today for no other reason than their parents used condoms at a time when they otherwise would have conceived.

In fact forget contraception. How many children WOULD be alive today, 5 year olds running around who would turn out to be teenagers and so forth as you describe, but for one partner saying to their spouse "Not tonight dear, I am not in the mood"?

See how ridiculous it is to measure the morality of an action (or inaction) based on whether it will eventually result in a 5 year old running around or not?

Penny Tration

Martypants1 wrote: »

Yup, she accepts these standard child birth risks once she lets a man up on her.

What if they change position and she's the one "up on him?" Is abortion okay then?

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

By this logic killing a 1 year old is less of a crime than killing a 10 year old.

I was highlighting the totality of differences between the born and the unborn, to show how they are simply not equal in a empirical sense. These points don't all feed into our valuation of the human. The ones you left out, bodily autonomy and the requirement to be born in order to continue living, are the relevant differences when it comes to killing.

Martypants1 wrote: »

No they're not.

I can't make it much simpler for you.

You have said that you accept abortion if both parties agree to it.

You have said that when a woman has sex, she accepts the risks and cannot go back on that decision.

These two assertions are in direct conflict. Which is it?

Neyite

Martypants1 wrote: »

You don't just get diabetes through bad health choices.

Martypants1 wrote: »

Yup, she accepts these standard child birth risks once she lets a man up on her.

In that case, drinking is up there with sex. Its a legal, enjoyable, social activity, with legal conditions. For example, adults partake in it, and it's illegal for children to partake in it. Some abuse it or take risks. Others, through no fault of their own may experience consequences.

So if women are just supposed to suck it up that they may die or have lifelong health issues as a result of having sex, the why not have the same for any alcohol related injuries and diseases?

If you fall and wallop your head on the pavement on a stag night or you've buggered up your liver, well, you brought it on yourself, didn't you. Should have thought of that before you started doing all those Jagerbombs, eh? Fcuk off like a good lad and stop pestering the hard working nursing staff who have REAL patients with REAL medical conditions to look after. If you bleed to death, meh.

Oh, your drink was spiked? Yeah.:rolleyes: Tough sh!t on that too. Yeah, I know you say you didn't consent, but come on. How do we know you are telling the truth? You might be lying in order to get medical treatment, drunks are like that, you know. Lets get a GP, psych evaluation, and a panel together to assess you. It could take a few months -Overstretched health service yanno. I know your liver is deteriorating while we do this/ blood clot building in your brain but you should have thought of that before you went out on the piss eh??

Here's a leaflet for a clinic in England that will stitch you up or get you a liver transplant. You'll have to stump up the costs yourself obviously.

There would be uproar if we treated alcohol related health conditions like I've described above in our hospitals. But this is how you feel women should be treated?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You have said that you accept abortion if both parties agree to it.

You have said that when a woman has sex, she accepts the risks and cannot go back on that decision.

These two assertions are in direct conflict. Which is it?

You're putting words in my mouth now.

When a woman has sex, she accepts standard childbirth risks. She shouldn't claim her health is at risk in this instance as there is risks for every birth.

If the situation changes for whatever reason, I dunno, the woman develops an illness, and a medical professional identifies risks not standard to childbirth then yes she should be allowed to abort against the wishes of the man.

Neyite wrote: »

In that case, drinking is up there with sex. Its a legal, enjoyable, social activity, with legal conditions. For example, adults partake in it, and it's illegal for children to partake in it. Some abuse it or take risks. Others, through no fault of their own may experience consequences.

So if women are just supposed to suck it up that they may die or have lifelong health issues as a result of having sex, the why not have the same for any alcohol related injuries and diseases?

If you fall and wallop your head on the pavement on a stag night or you've buggered up your liver, well, you brought it on yourself, didn't you. Should have thought of that before you started doing all those Jagerbombs, eh? Fcuk off like a good lad and stop pestering the hard working nursing staff who have REAL patients with REAL medical conditions to look after. If you bleed to death, meh.

Oh, your drink was spiked? Yeah.:rolleyes: Tough sh!t on that too. Yeah, I know you say you didn't consent, but come on. How do we know you are telling the truth? You might be lying in order to get medical treatment, drunks are like that, you know. Lets get a GP, psych evaluation, and a panel together to assess you. It could take a few months -Overstretched health service yanno. I know your liver is deteriorating while we do this/ blood clot building in your brain but you should have thought of that before you went out on the piss eh??

Here's a leaflet for a clinic in England that will stitch you up or get you a liver transplant. You'll have to stump up the costs yourself obviously.

There would be uproar if we treated alcohol related health conditions like I've described above in our hospitals. But this is how you feel women should be treated?

Your whole post is based on sarcasm, how can you expect to be taken seriously? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Read every one of my posts again and then if you don't understand them, read them again.

You decided upon writing a big sarcastic spiel on the least important part of the whole thing, who pays for it.

Electric Sheep

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I don't know to be honest but my opinion of them would change, whether I'd make my feelings known or not I don't know. If I found out in advance I'd do my best to stop them also. Luckily I can't see anyone I know closely even considering an abortion so it's not something I'm likely to be faced with.

Based on statistics, it's most likely that someone you know closely has not only considered abortion, they or their partner have had one.

So, Nox, should you find out someone close to you was considering an abortion, would you make a serious and heartfelt offer to adopt the potential child yourself?

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

So that makes the killing of 12 unborn children today ok, the main thing is it isn't happening here.

Well of course, the pure virgin soil of Ireland must not have a single drop of unborn blood spilt on it. As for Britain and mainland Europe, well it has the soil of a WHORE![/SPUC announcement]

volchitsa

Martypants1 wrote: »

You're putting words in my mouth now.

When a woman has sex, she accepts standard childbirth risks. She shouldn't claim her health is at risk in this instance as there is risks for every birth.

When you take aspirin, there is a standard measurable risk that you will have a haemorrhage and possibly die. If you do, do you expect the doctors to just say you knew before you took it so we cant waste precious resources trying to save you?

When she has sex, she's taking a risk of getting pregnant, sure. That's why she can't sue the pill manufacturers just because it wasn't 100% effective.

That doesn't mean she was giving her consent to giving birth and looking after a child for the next 20 years of her life, not the same thing at all.

If the situation changes for whatever reason, I dunno, the woman develops an illness, and a medical professional identifies risks not standard to childbirth then yes she should be allowed to abort against the wishes of the man.

But death is a "standard risk of childbirth", so you're saying that merely by having sex, she was consenting to possibly dying (and must therefore be allowed to die, even though she denies she ever consented to dying) but that if she develops some rare unexpected illness, that won't kill her, but that she didn't know about (I got carpal tunnel, I certainly didn't know pregnancy could cause it, would that have been enough to fit the bill? :rolleyes:) then in that case she might be let out of this contract she never knew she was signing?

Can you not see a problem with your logic there?

Martypants1 wrote: »

You're putting words in my mouth now.

Am I? Then let me use your words:

Martypants1 wrote: »

I'm all for abortion in cases like rape, fatal foetul, womans health is at risk.

And I am all for abortion if a woman and a man have a baby and decide they want to abort.

Martypants1 wrote: »

When a woman has sex, she accepts standard childbirth risks. She shouldn't claim her health is at risk in this instance as there is risks for every birth.

You agree with abortion where both parties want it. This is in addition to abortion in circumstances where there is a (presumably doctor-defined) risk to the woman's health (and rape and fetal abnormality).

So given that where there is a doctor-defined health risk, a rape or abnormality, a woman may terminate without the man's consent, in what circumstances are the man and woman allowed to mutually agree to an abortion?

You've ruled out the woman reversing her decision based on the normal health risks of childbirth, so what conditions allow mutually agreed abortion?

Neyite

Martypants1 wrote: »

Your whole post is based on sarcasm, how can you expect to be taken seriously? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Read every one of my posts again and then if you don't understand them, read them again.

You decided upon writing a big sarcastic spiel on the least important part of the whole thing, who pays for it.

It feels sarcastic and condescending to you (presumably a man?) when I frame it like that? Exactly my point.

It's not sarcastic at all sadly, just the same kind of retoric composed of pretty much all the arguments that people spout about women who may or may not wish to have an abortion. But using drink as an example rather than sex.

Martypants1 wrote: »

Yup, she accepts these standard child birth risks once she lets a man up on her.

As in: Yup, he accepts these standard alcohol risks once he lets a barman serve him.

volchitsa wrote: »

When you take aspirin, there is a standard measurable risk that you will have a haemorrhage and possibly die. If you do, do you expect the doctors to just say you knew before you took it so we cant waste precious resources trying to save you?

When she has sex, she's taking a risk of getting pregnant, sure. That's why she can't sue the pill manufacturers just because it wasn't 100% effective.

That doesn't mean she was giving her consent to giving birth and looking after a child for the next 20 years of her life, not the same thing at all.

But death is a "standard risk of childbirth", so you're saying that merely by having sex, she was consenting to possibly dying (and must therefore be allowed to die, even though she denies she ever consented to dying) but that if she develops some rare unexpected illness, that won't kill her, but that she didn't know about (I got carpal tunnel, I certainly didn't know pregnancy could cause it, would that have been enough to fit the bill? :rolleyes:) then in that case she might be let out of this contract she never knew she was signing?

Can you not see a problem with your logic there?

You don't understand risk it seems.

I'll make it simple for you. Climbing a ladder, there's a risk right? Imagine this is the standard risk of childbirth. You can fall off and die right?

Now, imagine you've climbed the ladder and your 2 arms fall off. The risk is greater yeah?

In my opinion (which was really simple to begin with) is, if you climb the ladder in the first instance and a man doesn't want an abortion and the woman does then tough ****, the circumstances that you knew before climbing the ladder have stayed the same.

You seem to think I am contradicting myself by making them out to be the same thing.

seamus

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

As a citizen of Ireland I very much should have a say in what is allowed in this country, this is not simply about someones choices its about what we as a society should strive for, You don't go around saying "people should stay the f*ck out of some womans life, she should be allowed murder her 3 year old as she doesn't want him anymore"

How is killing a 3 year old, a reproductive choice? Once again someone on the anti-choice side has difficulty separating out the difference between a living and breathing individual from a reproductive choice.

Neyite wrote: »

It feels sarcastic and condescending to you (presumably a man?) when I frame it like that? Exactly my point.

It's not sarcastic at all sadly, just the same kind of retoric composed of pretty much all the arguments that people spout about women who may or may not wish to have an abortion. But using drink as an example rather than sex.

As in: Yup, he accepts these standard alcohol risks once he lets a barman serve him.

I don't get your point, I know a guy who got brain damaged while drunk and his family are constantly fundraising for medical expenses. Do you think the state should pay all the expenses?

seamus

Martypants1 wrote: »

I don't get your point, I know a guy who got brain damaged while drunk and his family are constantly fundraising for medical expenses. Do you think the state should pay all the expenses?

The state does.

His family are probably fundraising for additional treatments not provided by the state.

Neyite

Martypants1 wrote: »

I don't get your point, I know a guy who got brain damaged while drunk and his family are constantly fundraising for medical expenses. Do you think the state should pay all the expenses?

I believe that we should offer medical care to all that require it, and that their needs should be a matter to be decided by their doctors and their carers. Irish families should NOT have to fund raise to provide basic medical care or long term comfort and quality of life to our infirm/ disabled, irrespective of how they came by that disease or disability.

Martypants1 wrote: »

You don't understand risk it seems.

I'll make it simple for you. Climbing a ladder, there's a risk right? Imagine this is the standard risk of childbirth. You can fall off and die right?

Now, imagine you've climbed the ladder and your 2 arms fall off. The risk is greater yeah?

In my opinion (which was really simple to begin with) is, if you climb the ladder in the first instance and a man doesn't want an abortion and the woman does then tough ****, the circumstances that you knew before climbing the ladder have stayed the same.

You seem to think I am contradicting myself by making them out to be the same thing.

Here's a better analogy.

A man and a woman need to get to point X. It is an urgent journey and not a trivial one. It's too far to walk or cycle, but they have a car. The car has two seats, but the driver-side seatbelt is damaged and will not work well in the event of a crash.

The man cannot drive, but the woman can. There are no laws in the local jurisdiction about use of seatbelts, so the choice to use it or not is up to the individual. The road conditions and traffic are mostly known, and the relationship between the man and woman is amiable.

After thoroughly discussing the risks, they agree they will use the car to get to point X.

After about 10 minutes however, the woman becomes very nervous. She is driving responsibly, the roads continue to be no more or less busy than expected, and the man continues to be amiable. However, the reality of the risk she now faces becomes clearer to her, now that she can see roadside obstacles passing at speed, and g-forces of the car as it accelerates. She is now very worried about the risk of harm coming to her, even though the conditions generally have not changed from when she made her decision to drive. Only her perspective has changed.

In one version of your world, she now has no choice. She must drive on, and accept the consequences, regardless of what they may be.

In another version of your world, she can only stop the car with the consent of her partner.

In my world, she is the one at greater risk, she is in the drivers seat, her perspective is different to what it was previously, and she can stop whenever the hell she likes.

bodice ripper

I think the women of Ireland should go on strike until this amendment is repealed. No one puts out until then.

As an amusing aside - the no camp are represented more by older people, who will suddenly be getting way more attention down the pub.