Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…4849515354…200

Comments

  • #2502
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not.

    YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter.



    Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do?? :confused::confused::confused:

    Yes, I've done that, thank you. If you've never been impelled to dig deeper based on the disagreeable manner someone displays in their campaigning, then maybe you should learn to take it as a useful clue.

    Neither do I.

    How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.


  • #2503
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

    I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

    I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

    Who specifically are you talking about here? Because that doesn't sound like any of the spokespeople I've seen or heard.


  • #2504
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Widdershins wrote: »
    How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.

    Again I did not say it was. You seem to be hearing a lot of what you want to hear, and none of what is actually being said. This is however a public discussion forum and I can reply to anything you post on it. And I was replying to this.......
    Widdershins wrote: »
    Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.

    ......... to point out that allowing your position on the rights and wrongs of an important issue to be influenced by someone espousing on the issue being immature is about as "lightly" as one can take it.

    Not to mention the selection bias inherent in missing that for every poor personality on one side, you are likely to find it's equal on the other. The Anti Choice campaign is far from short of it's immature loud mouths.

    So all I did was point out that I personally tend to vote based solely on the issue itself, rather than the personalities of people speaking about it. Nothing more. Why this bothers you, I can not say.


  • #2505
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,154 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That does not mean they are not comparable however. I am confused at this point as to whether you know what the word comparable even means. You seem to think it means "the same in every way". It does not. The simple fact is they are not sentient NOW and that makes a point of comparison.

    If a rock is grey and a car is grey they are comparable. I can say "They are both things that are grey". The fact that one has many attributes different to the other does not mean they are not comparable.

    there is no comparison between an unborn baby, a rock and a table. to compare them is just waffle, and post filler. all filler no killer as they say.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The pregnant women however is sentient now, and I see no reason to curtail her choices or her well being in favor of a not just slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity.

    her choices are effecting a human being inside her, therefore those choices have to be restricted to uphold the rights of that human being. rights we recognise in this country and have legislated for, as much as is possible.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Might, not will. You can not see the future. But either way the word WILL implies it is not NOW sentient. So I see no basis for affording it rights, or moral and ethical concern. Nor are you offering one other than declaring "must" a lot. You are appealing to potentials to declare acuals. And not just in general, but specifically in a case that curtails the rights, choices, and well being of an ACTUAL sentient agent. The pregnant woman.

    where others will be effected, rights will be restricted to insure a level playing field. it is happening all the time. it is how it needs to be, it's how society functions.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nothing has the "right to be sentient". You just invented that out of nowhere.

    in this country the unborn baby has a right to be sentient. it has the right to life. removing that right allows for the eventual removal of other rights, we must not allow that to happen.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    When you are aborting a fetus however there is no "other" to affect. It is a non-sentient construct of biological matter with no rights and source of moral obligation.

    when you are aborting a baby there is an other to effect, that unborn baby. it is a would be sentient who has rights in this country. the right to life as much as is practical and the right to be protected as much as is possible. there is no reason for that to change for the most part, given that where extreme circumstances come to be, abortion can be caried out.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2506
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    there is no comparison between an unborn baby, a rock and a table. to compare them is just waffle, and post filler. all filler no killer as they say.

    Again if two things share an attribute, then they are comparable based on that attribute. This is basic English as to what the word "comparable" even means. The simple fact is they share the attribute of being devoid of consciousness, therefore they are comparable on that basis.
    end of the road wrote: »
    her choices are effecting a human being inside her

    Which is not a PERSON and has no attribute upon which to think of it as one. Calling it a "human being" does not make it one, outside the realms of mere taxonomy. Are morality and ethics to be mediated on mere taxonomy now? That is..... pretty limited.
    end of the road wrote: »
    where others will be effected

    And as I keep saying there is no meaningful "other" to be affected here. You are just imagining there is, supported by little more than appeals to the current legal status quo.
    end of the road wrote: »
    in this country the unborn baby has a right to be sentient. it has the right to life. removing that right allows for the eventual removal of other rights, we must not allow that to happen.

    Slippery slope fallacy. Removal of one rights, solely on the merits of arguments relevant to it, does not automatically open the door to the removal of any other.
    end of the road wrote: »
    when you are aborting a baby there is an other to effect, that unborn baby.

    It is a fetus and there are no "lights on" in terms of humanity or personhood. It is an empty biological life form with no coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern. "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.


  • #2507
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,530 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Widdershins wrote: »
    No. You'd have to completely ignore my concerns about their motives to think that. And focus on what suits you. Which of course you did. Predictably.


    their motives are irrelevant. If you are looking for ulterior motives there are plenty on the opposite side. what is relevant is the facts of the situation. something you have relegated to a distant third in your considerations.


  • #2508
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.

    Unfortunately it is not as simple as that - a rock is "not sentient" but unless you imply the atoms in that rock may ultimately end up in a sentient human being (or alien :) ) -then it can never be described as "would be sentient".

    Anyway - I'll continue on the other more moderated thread because it has a better chance of throwing up nuggets of worthwhile discussion points.


  • #2509
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    their motives are irrelevant. If you are looking for ulterior motives there are plenty on the opposite side. what is relevant is the facts of the situation. something you have relegated to a distant third in your considerations.

    Excuse me, their motives are highly relevant when their motives are an aim that's diametrically opposed to my own.

    The facts of the situation have informed my opinion. The actions and manner of campaigners alerted me to the potential for this to go in a direction I cannot support. Nothing is more relevant to my vote.

    ''The other side'' is of no interest to me, ultimately this is my firmly held view that neither side could change.


  • #2510
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Unfortunately it is not as simple as that - a rock is "not sentient" but unless you imply the atoms in that rock may ultimately end up in a sentient human being (or alien :) ) -then it can never be described as "would be sentient".

    If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.
    Widdershins wrote: »
    ''The other side'' is of no interest to me, ultimately this is my firmly held view that neither side could change.

    Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else. I hold many views, some of them very firmly indeed, but that are all amenable to change. And almost always I know what would be required to change them.

    For example my pro choice abortion position could be instantly changed by a single coherent argument for affording moral and ethical concern to 12/16 week old fetuses.


  • #2511
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.



    Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else.

    I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable. You criticised for being influenced by behaviour of campaigners a moment ago. When I just felt I needed to know more about their future, publicly unspoken aims if I was to align myself with their present campaign. Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts. Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever. There are people who vote for politicians based on their mugshot appeal alone.

    re: your edit. Medical abortion can be performed at 12 weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • #2512
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,154 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kylith wrote: »
    IDK if you can do that if they haven't signed an organ donor form.*

    Funny how you can't use the organs from a corpse to keep sentient, suffering people alive without their consent, but you can force a sentient, living woman to use her entire body to keep alive an insentient fetus that is incapable of suffering.

    *Has that now been changed to the saner 'opt out' system?

    it's necessary as we recognise that someone has a right to make the decisian over donating their organs. when it comes to abortion however we are insuring that the right of the unborn to live is protected and upheld where possible. i can see where you are coming from but there is a difference.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

    not really. if a proponent of a particular campaign is known to be economical with the truth, then it would be correct to be suspicious of them and their word. in such a case, it would be better to go against what they say.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again if two things share an attribute, then they are comparable based on that attribute. This is basic English as to what the word "comparable" even means. The simple fact is they share the attribute of being devoid of consciousness, therefore they are comparable on that basis.

    but are not comparable over all as the unborn will be sentient whereas the others will never be.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which is not a PERSON and has no attribute upon which to think of it as one. Calling it a "human being" does not make it one, outside the realms of mere taxonomy. Are morality and ethics to be mediated on mere taxonomy now? That is..... pretty limited.

    it will be a person, and will have atributes upon which to think of it as one. calling it a human being is accurate as it is a human being, it's hardly an extra-terresstrial being. taxonomy isn't relevant here, as a factual statement is that a human being is a human being.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And as I keep saying there is no meaningful "other" to be affected here. You are just imagining there is, supported by little more than appeals to the current legal status quo.

    oh but there is a meaningful other to be effected. the unborn human being. this is based upon actual facts. the legal status just gives it the protection it deserves, as much as it can.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    It is a fetus and there are no "lights on" in terms of humanity or personhood. It is an empty biological life form with no coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern. "Would be sentient" simply means "Not sentient". Again, basic English really.

    it is a human being which will become a person, which has a huge coherent basis for affording it rights or moral and ethical concern and protection. there is nothing of fact to state otherwise. would be sentient means would be sentient, it is very likely to be sentient, so therefore has to have the protection it currently has, to insure it's rights are met as much as is practical. your arguments do not stack up in terms of the facts as a whole.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2513
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.



    Have to say that is also alien to my experience. I can not say I hold, or have ever held, a view that I am so fundamentalist about that it could not be changed by someone or something else. I hold many views, some of them very firmly indeed, but that are all amenable to change. And almost always I know what would be required to change them.

    For example my pro choice abortion position could be instantly changed by a single coherent argument for affording moral and ethical concern to 12/16 week old fetuses.

    Where do you draw the line though!
    At what age do you consider a foetus as a viable human and why?


  • #2514
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If I say "X is becoming Y" then I am also saying "X is not Y". Simple logic really, and simple English. So if someone tells me something "would be sentient" they are telling me it is NOT sentient now.

    Exactly - the "now" bit is important - but ha this is going back to semantics so I'm not falling back into this trap (my own trap, not yours ;) ).

    Needless to say - if you were drafting a legal document you'd be very careful when choosing to use X is becoming Y and not interchangeably using it with X is not Y.


  • #2515
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Edward M wrote: »
    Where do you draw the line though!
    At what age do you consider a foetus as a viable human and why?

    I think attaining the faculty of consciousness does that.

    Not to be rude, but I answered a similar question here, if you will forgive me for using a link rather than repeating myself.
    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Needless to say - if you were drafting a legal document you'd be very careful when choosing to use X is becoming Y and not interchangeably using it with X is not Y.

    Law is not my forte :) I am by training and practice a scientist, by mix of some training and hobby in the area of philosophy and linguistics, and by hobby a debater in formal and informal capacities. :)

    But linguistically if you tell me X is becoming Y, or X will some day be Y, or X is on the way to Y now............. the general implication in most contexts is "NOT Y"


  • #2516
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    We do not have enough knowledge at this time to point to an EXACT time that humans become sentient. In fact from all my reading of the subject I believe there is no one moment it happens.

    Rather it is like trying to find the point where red turns into orange on a rainbow. You can point to places you are sure are red, and places you are sure are orange, but you will never find a transition point.

    For the purposes of abortion however I do not think we need to know when a fetus BECOMES sentient (Orange), but when it is not (Red). We can not find a transition point, but we CAN point to the rainbow and say "This is red".

    And 98%ish of abortions by choice happen WELL within that red zone. A zone where not just most, but everything we know about human consciousness and sentience at this time tells us sentience is simply not there.

    Thanks for your answer to my original post.

    I bring back your original post which you linked to.
    Its a shady answer and can't be argued with in itself, but for the purposes of a law and perhaps even to salve consciences some date and time must be put on it, like saying, whether you like it or not, here is the end of red and the beginning of orange, even though I can clearly see orange has already started while you can still argue that no, its still red and by law you are right.
    If it can't be exacted then it must not be clear to anyone when sentience begins then its basing a law on assumption of an uncertainty.
    Therefore asking people to enact an uncertainty might not salve their conscience .
    I was a baby once myself, fcuked if I can remember when I became sentient, (i know , i know)maybe if mama had strangled me at birth she would have been sound?


  • #2517
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,753 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

    A quote from the journal of medical ethics. The reasons for infanticide are the same that are made for abortion as there is a moral equivalence.

    The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

    Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.


  • #2518
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Widdershins wrote: »
    I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable.

    If you say so. I was solely commenting on your claim that a portion of your conclusions is based on viewing certain spokespeople as immature. And I am simply pointing out that I am not similarly moved by anything other than the facts of the issue because:

    a) Personality is irrelevant to the rights and wrong of the actual issue and
    b) when one removes selection bias one notices that both sides have their equal share of people with such personality issues. So to be influenced by that from ONE side and not the other, is likely a sign that the personality issues are being used retrospectively to justify a position already held.
    Widdershins wrote: »
    Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts.

    Depending on what you exactly mean by "later" we probably agree. I see no reason why we as a society need to offer abortion purely on the basis of choice after 16 weeks. Though if I woke up in an Ireland tomorrow that offered 12 or 20 I would lose sleep over neither.
    Widdershins wrote: »
    Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever.

    You are not sure why someone might be troubled that people decide important issues that affects 1000s of peoples well being, without any thought? Well then I can only say I am EQUALLY not sure how to explain it to you.

    But yes ideally I would like to live in a world where people think about their choices rationally, rather than emotively. It is just the way I am. And if I can stimulate thought and/or discussion at any point, I tend to take that option.


  • #2519
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    but are not comparable over all as the unborn will be sentient whereas the others will never be.

    Again, finding a point where two things are not comparable, does not negate the points where they are. The simple fact is neither of them are sentient NOW. If you have any arguments as to why potential sentience, rather than actual sentience, should mediate moral and ethical concern I am certainly agog to hear them.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it will be a person, and will have atributes upon which to think of it as one. calling it a human being is accurate as it is a human being, it's hardly an extra-terresstrial being. taxonomy isn't relevant here, as a factual statement is that a human being is a human being.

    Yet in different contexts "human being" means different things. What is means to be "human" in taxonomy (which is what a fetus is) differs from what it means to be "Human" or a "person" philosophically (which is what a fetus is NOT).

    That you want to jump between contexts while retaining the same meaning is a failure of your own rhetoric, not mine.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it is a human being which will become a person

    Might become, not will. But the fact it will/might means it is not one NOW. Which is basically the crux of my entire point on the matter so thanks for making it for me.

    But AGAIN I have to ask, if you have any arguments for affording moral and ethical concern based on potentials rather than actuals I would be happy to hear them made, rather than asserted.


  • #2520
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Edward M wrote: »
    Its a shady answer and can't be argued with in itself

    Maybe you should see if I can argue it rather than simply declare I can not? If you want to challenge it do. Words are easy to say, but harder to make stick, so if you want to declare it to be "shady" then by all means explain HOW it is rather than merely assert THAT it is.

    Because what IS shady, is merely declaring an argument to be shady, without arguing how it actually is.
    Edward M wrote: »
    some date and time must be put on it

    Absolutely. And I have many times in many ways said I would pin my flag to the mast of 16 weeks. But if I woke up in an Ireland tomorrow with 12 or 20 weeks, I would be pretty much just as happy.

    The near totality (98% usually) of abortions done purely by choice are done in or before week 16. I think therefore 16 weeks would be ideal. However even at 12 weeks we tend to see uptake of around 92%, even in jurisdictions where 24 weeks are allowed.
    Edward M wrote: »
    I was a baby once myself, fcuked if I can remember when I became sentient, (i know , i know)maybe if mama had strangled me at birth she would have been sound?

    I certainly have the courage of my convictions. If science tomorrow showed that new borns entirely lack the faculty of sentience, I would stick to my guns and declare myself to have zero moral or ethical concern for new borns.

    But that is just theory at this point, as no science I know of coherently suggests that. We often question what capacity their faculty for sentience is operating at (as we do with coma patients for example) but that they HAVE one is rarely in question.

    Peter Singer, to name but one, does seem to think that when comparing sentience in this way between species that, say, an adult cow should have more moral and ethical concern from us than a new born human. Not sure I buy his thinking on the matter though.


  • Advertisement
  • #2521
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Widdershins wrote: »
    I'm not easily led nor deeply impressionable. You criticised for being influenced by behaviour of campaigners a moment ago. When I just felt I needed to know more about their future, publicly unspoken aims if I was to align myself with their present campaign. Later term abortion is not something I will be persuaded to vote for directly or indirectly, based on biological facts. Not sure why it troubles you so much, many will vote for very shallow reasons and put no deep thought into it whatsoever. There are people who vote for politicians based on their mugshot appeal alone.

    Later term abortions will be a consequence of a no vote. The status quo is that women travel or take other steps, which by its nature means they are accessing abortion services later than they would have if it was available locally. You can see that in the English statistics; the percentage of Irish women having abortions within the first 12 weeks is roughly 8% lower than those of English residents.

    A no vote also means Irish women continue to be twice as likely as English residents to have a surgical abortion; last year 78% of Irish women had a surgical abortion, compared to 38% of English women. As far as I know, that's because medical abortions take longer to complete, and time, and the financial cost that goes with that, are commodities most Irish residents don't have.

    So looking at the facts alone, a no vote doesn't achieve your aims of reducing the likelihood of later term or surgical abortions.

    Conversely, it doesn't follow that a yes vote will lead to more later term abortions. Around the globe, whether access is subject to term limits or not, the trend is that when women can access abortion, they do so early on. Typically, more than 90% of abortions are carried within the first trimester. So even if a yes vote did mean that Ireland would eventually end up legalising later term abortions (and I wouldn't put money on the odds of that happening anytime soon), it doesn't follow that abortions will happen later on.

    So it's a simple choice:

    A No vote means later term and surgical abortions WILL happen.
    A Yes vote means it might happen, but it's not likely.

    If someone is basing their criteria on the prospects of later terms abortions, then the choice is clear: vote for repeal. Anyone who would decide to vote no is prioritising other criteria.


  • #2522
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Later term abortions will be a consequence of a no vote. The status quo is that women travel or take other steps, which by its nature means they are accessing abortion services later than they would have if it was available locally. You can see that in the English statistics; the percentage of Irish women having abortions within the first 12 weeks is roughly 8% lower than those of English residents.

    A no vote also means Irish women continue to be twice as likely as English residents to have a surgical abortion; last year 78% of Irish women had a surgical abortion, compared to 38% of English women. As far as I know, that's because medical abortions take longer to complete, and time, and the financial cost that goes with that, are commodities most Irish residents don't have.

    So looking at the facts alone, a no vote doesn't achieve your aims of reducing the likelihood of later term or surgical abortions.

    Conversely, it doesn't follow that a yes vote will lead to more later term abortions. Around the globe, whether access is subject to term limits or not, the trend is that when women can access abortion, they do so early on. Typically, more than 90% of abortions are carried within the first trimester. So even if a yes vote did mean that Ireland would eventually end up legalising later term abortions (and I wouldn't put money on the odds of that happening anytime soon), it doesn't follow that abortions will happen later on.

    So it's a simple choice:

    A No vote means later term and surgical abortions WILL happen.
    A Yes vote means it might happen, but it's not likely.

    If someone is basing their criteria on the prospects of later terms abortions, then the choice is clear: vote for repeal. Anyone who would decide to vote no is prioritising other criteria.

    Interesting comment, thank you.

    I haven't followed the campaign lately, has the wording been published? I need to know what I'm voting on before I can really be sure.

    It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper.
    But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.


  • #2523
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,837 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Can somebody clear something up for me.
    Whilst we haven't had any wording for the referendum yet are we basically voting to allow abortion up to 12 with in all circumstances?


  • #2524
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Maybe you should see if I can argue it rather than simply declare I can not? If you want to challenge it do. Words are easy to say, but harder to make stick, so if you want to declare it to be "shady" then by all means explain HOW it is rather than merely assert THAT it is.

    Because what IS shady, is merely declaring an argument to be shady, without arguing how it actually is.

    Absolutely not arguing that you know what you're saying or can't argue it, in fact I find your posts most interesting.
    We may not agree on things but that doesent lessen my value of your opinion, which as all opinions, should be considered on their merits.
    The I'm right you're wrong attitude is always too prevalent in these type of debates.


  • #2525
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Who specifically are you talking about here? Because that doesn't sound like any of the spokespeople I've seen or heard.

    Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy?

    I heard a lot about them.


  • #2526
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Interesting comment, thank you.

    I haven't followed the campaign lately, has the wording been published? I need to know what I'm voting on before I can really be sure.

    The precise wording won't be decided until it's gone through the full Oireachtas, and I don't know what the timetable on that is. But if the intention is to hold the referendum in May, it'll have to be done be done by sometime in April at the latest.

    If the Oireachtas follows the lead of the Committee, the wording will be along the lines of "Do you agree with the proposal to remove Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution" (this is the article that contains the 8th Amendment). The Oireachtas will then legislate afterwards, probably along the lines of the Committee's recommendations.

    If the Marriage Equality and Children's referendums are anything to go by, a draft of the intended legislation will be released prior to the referendum as well, so people will know what will happen after repeal. It won't be on the ballot paper, because that's solely about what's in our Constitution. And both the Citizens Assembly and the Committee on the 8th both agree the Constitution isn't the right place for our abortion laws.
    Widdershins wrote: »
    It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper.
    But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.

    I take it you're referring to 78% statistic for surgical abortions in England. I'm hypothesising as to the reason, so I could easily be wrong. But the statistic itself is solid; 78% of Irish women having an abortion in England have a surgical abortion, compared to 38% for English women. That's a massive variance that can't be explained alone by the higher likliehood of a later term abortion for Irish women. Some other factor is influencing that decision.


  • Advertisement
  • #2527
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Can somebody clear something up for me.
    Whilst we haven't had any wording for the referendum yet are we basically voting to allow abortion up to 12 with in all circumstances?

    Assuming the Oireachtas legislates along the lines of the Committee's and Assembly's recommendations, then yes. Access to abortion after that will be for specific reasons.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy?

    I heard a lot about them.

    Not just in their face, but ramming it down their throats too! :D We would have won it if it wasn't for them! :p


  • #2528
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy?

    I heard a lot about them.

    Not sure if I should ask, but, what?


  • #2529
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,837 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Assuming the Oireachtas legislates along the lines of the Committee's and Assembly's recommendations, then yes. Access to abortion after that will be for specific reasons.

    Thanks.
    I'm not sure how this referendum will go to be honest. I thought a few years ago it might pass but the result of the marriage referendum made me unsure.


  • #2530
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Not sure if I should ask, but, what?

    During the SSM campaign, we heard from lots of non-religious moderate people who have no problem with the gays and would totally vote for same sex marriage only Panty Bliss is over the top and in your face so they voted the way the bishop said instead.

    Totally Pantys fault.


  • #2531
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,139 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    During the SSM campaign, we heard from lots of non-religious moderate people who have no problem with the gays and would totally vote for same sex marriage only Panty Bliss is over the top and in your face so they voted the way the bishop said instead.

    Totally Pantys fault.

    Him bein all gay in their face. They seemed to have a thing about people bein gay in their faces.

    Not that I judge, of course.


  • Advertisement
  • #2532
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Thirdfox wrote: »

    I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

    :D

    Thirdfox. I want to apologise for my good night princess comment. That was out of order and unnecessary. :o


  • #2533
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's necessary as we recognise that someone has a right to make the decisian over donating their organs. when it comes to abortion however we are insuring that the right of the unborn to live is protected and upheld where possible. i can see where you are coming from but there is a difference.

    But in each case the rights of the living are less important than the rights of the not born and the dead.

    The unborn and the dead will never know one way of the other. In both cases it's the living who suffer.


  • #2534
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,154 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kylith wrote: »
    But in each case the rights of the living are less important than the rights of the not born and the dead.

    The unborn and the dead will never know one way of the other. In both cases it's the living who suffer.

    but both cases are different. in the case of the organ transplant issue we have a recognition that someone has the right to choose to or not to donate their organs, that it is full bodily autonomy, because while someone will sadly be effected via the choice via less potential for an organ, the organs do belong to the body they are in and the person had the right to make a decisian not to donate them. + there is potential for other donors.
    in the case of abortion however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2535
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn. Also, its too wide as someone can get an abortion for any reason.


  • #2536
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    end of the road wrote: »
    but both cases are different. in the case of the organ transplant issue we have a recognition that someone has the right to choose to or not to donate their organs, that it is full bodily autonomy, because while someone will sadly be effected via the choice via less potential for an organ, the organs do belong to the body they are in and the person had the right to make a decisian not to donate them. + there is potential for other donors.
    in the case of abortion however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.

    Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

    A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.


  • #2537
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    kylith wrote: »
    Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

    A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.

    Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.


  • #2538
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,585 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    markodaly wrote: »
    Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

    Seems not:
    Foetuses cannot feel pain because it requires mental development that only occurs outside the womb, says a report in the British Medical Journal.

    Dr Stuart Derbyshire, of the University of Birmingham, said a baby's actions and relationships with carers enabled it to process the subjectivity of pain.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #2539
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,154 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kylith wrote: »
    Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

    A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.

    i'm afraid that can't happen as the unborn life has a right to live and a right to be protected from harm. when it is having it's life taken it is the one who is fully effected by that, as it is being killed. it is about to be sentient also, so there is a will to go against.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2540
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Seems not:



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm

    Nope, that article is taking one doctors word on it, seems he as no research published on the matter and is just pushing an agenda.

    Meanwhile, peer reviewed research, states that babies can feel pain.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900087/
    For the first time it was demonstrated that the human fetal stress response was attenuated by the administration of a narcotic. Long-term effects of fetal stress have also been described. Independent groups have implicated fetal stress to exaggerated pain responses in eight week-old infants and have also implicated the fetal stress response as a contributor to pre-term labor.


  • #2541
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Presumably all those in favour of keeping the 8th as it is have no issue with the government providing welfare as necessary for the resulting children, perhaps through their entire lives? Or does life stop being previous when it leaves the womb?

    I can completely see why people are against abortion. I don't feel particularly comfortable with it myself, and if I had a partner considering it I'd ask them to consider other options. That said, I'd still gladly vote to abolish the 8th on the basis I think it's something that should be decided by the individuals concerned, and I think anything that stops less children being born to parents who aren't ready will benefit society as a whole in the long run.


  • Advertisement
  • #2542
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    markodaly wrote: »
    Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

    Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.

    https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html


  • #2543
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Presumably all those in favour of keeping the 8th as it is have no issue with the government providing welfare as necessary for the resulting children, perhaps through their entire lives? Or does life stop being previous when it leaves the womb?

    Those resulting children will be the adults of the day paying the taxes to pay your pension. Or does life stop at you?


  • #2544
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Those resulting children will be the adults of the day paying the taxes to pay your pension. Or does life stop at you?

    There's only so many jobs that can exist, especially as we move towards a society where technology becomes more prevalent. More readily available abortion is going to reduce the numbers of people having children they can't afford. Given how much people like to complain about welfare scroungers getting benefits for their kids, surely people see that as a good thing?

    There are always going to be people working and paying taxes, unless someone had sneakily slipped mandatory abortion onto the agenda?


  • #2545
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    There's only so many jobs that can exist, especially as we move towards a society where technology becomes more prevalent. More readily available abortion is going to reduce the numbers of people having children they can't afford. Given how much people like to complain about welfare scroungers getting benefits for their kids, surely people see that as a good thing?

    There are always going to be people working and paying taxes, unless someone had sneakily slipped mandatory abortion onto the agenda?

    That's genocide. People see that as a good thing?


  • #2546
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Seriously - you want more children to be born to people who don't want to be parents (or, usually, parents AGAIN) in the first place...? Really? And you think this is some sort of underpants gnome economic model for society?

    Seriously?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2547
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    kylith wrote: »
    Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.

    https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html


    Some research says 12 weeks, some say as early as 8, some say at 20 weeks. The fact remains a baby in the womb can feel pain.


  • #2548
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    kylith wrote: »
    Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.

    https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

    That source is very weak.


  • #2549
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Widdershins wrote: »
    It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper.
    But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.

    I understand it takes 24-36 hours, and to get abortion pills in Britain you must be registered with a GP i.e. must be a British resident. Usually you abort at home but you contact the GP in the first instance if there are any complications.

    Irish residents (and, as I understand it, free abortions provided for NI residents will be the same) must either wait in the clinic for the medical abortion to complete - and I think that usually this option is not allowed or in any case would be cost prohibitive for a private patient as all ROI residents are - or else have a surgical abortion which can be completed within a couple of hours.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2550
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    There's only so many jobs that can exist?

    A great argument for abortion, sure we cant support them all.

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #2551
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Post-independence for 40-ish years we tried the economic policy of having poor people give birth to as many children as possible and far more than they wanted or could reasonably support.

    It didn't work well.

    But hey, catholic teaching :rolleyes:

    Scrap the cap!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement