Abortion Referendum

[Giordano]

"Anti-choice"? Women have all of the choices¹. Someone has to stick up for the choices of the unborn². Babies want to live³. In any earthquake, it is the hardy baby who will survive for days underneath rubble whilst the tall and strong perish³. It is the sheer will to survive that even gets them through nine months⁴.

I've highlighted the parts of your post that are not true. Given your participation in the thread I expect you to already know why they are not true, but I inserted footnotes just in case:

1. The whole point of this thread is that before the referendum woman in Ireland did not have a choice. And your consistent position in this thread has been to deny them that choice, the choice of whether to have an abortion or to carry their pregnancy to term.

2. Ah- that is the very question we've been discussing (well most of us- you not so much): when do the sperm and oocyte become human beings, and therefore when can they and the conceptus be considered an unborn human being such that it makes it legitimate for a stranger to "speak up"and impose their value judgement over that of the pregnant woman who is providing half the genes and all of the womb.

You can re-read my posts if you wish to review in detail the reasons most people have a view very different from your own and from most of the anti-choice cadre. But here is a little illustration of the issue: I ate a nice slice of rock cod a few days ago, a fish far more developmentally advanced, independent, and intelligent than is a human embryo for much of its time in the womb. Are you assigning yourself and your friends the right to speak up for that rod cod?

3.Babies want to live? How melodramatic! Have you had any babies or lived with any? Babies can't even conceptualize what being alive is, let alone want it. Sure, they are programmed to eat and to indicate when they are distressed. So are fish. Nothing as romantic or heroic as you are trying to spin it. And there is absolutely no statistical evidence that babies survive accidents or disasters better than do adults. You are falling into the trap of reaching general conclusions from having seen anecdotal newspaper headlines, "Baby found alive in rubble 3 days after earthquake." This is not routine, which is why it makes it to a headline (plus the newspaper seeking a human interest/heart warming headline). And in cases where babies do survive it is usually because of an adult protecting the baby: keeping them in a special car seat, making extra efforts to shield the kid rather than themselves, forgoing food in a famine so that the child can eat. In some circumstances babies have some advantage: they are more compact than adults and more padded and flexible,so less likely to break bones in some impacts. Not because the baby wants to live. Hell, how insulting to imply that the tall and strong adults who die in disasters didn't want to live!

4.Is this an attempt at humor or at romantic illusion? A fertilized one cell zygote wants to live and that is why it survives in the womb? A conceptus with no nerves wants to live? Perhaps the 4 out of 5 embryos that naturally do not make it to term are suicidal?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're wasting your breath. You'll never get a Pro-lifer to even acknowledge things like the simple fact that even if there were zero human induced abortions the vast majority of zygote/embryos/fetuses/whatever-I-don't-care-about-hairsplitting-the-terminology don't make it to viability.

The giant invisible sky wizard puts a soul in you. That's where their thought process ends.

 

[Giordano]

You're wasting your breath. You'll never get a Pro-lifer to even acknowledge things like the simple fact that even if there were zero human induced abortions the vast majority of zygote/embryos/fetuses/whatever-I-don't-care-about-hairsplitting-the-terminology don't make it to viability.

The giant invisible sky wizard puts a soul in you. That's where their thought process ends.

Yeah... I know. Sigh.

To some degree I enjoy detecting and calling attention to the biological, logical, biblical, or numerical flaws in the anti-choice arguments. I do not hope to change a pro-lifer's overall position but I must admit that I do sometimes have the hope that they will avoid persisting in their most flawed arguments. I've even been crazy enough to hope that a pro-lifer would post- "Hey, that is true and a reasonable point. However..." So far though I've been disappointed: virtually never an acknowledgement of even the smallest point, and the same old nonsense continues to be presented by route again and again.

Stop me before I post again! I am out of control and can't help myself! Does the Forum do interventions?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And, again I sort of hate to say it, but separate from the abortion debate there could be an interesting abortion discussion to be had.

There are interesting questions in the margins here that I wish it was ever possible to discuss without all the baggage.

 

[Vixen]

I've highlighted the parts of your post that are not true. Given your participation in the thread I expect you to already know why they are not true, but I inserted footnotes just in case:

1. The whole point of this thread is that before the referendum woman in Ireland did not have a choice. And your consistent position in this thread has been to deny them that choice, the choice of whether to have an abortion or to carry their pregnancy to term.

2. Ah- that is the very question we've been discussing (well most of us- you not so much): when do the sperm and oocyte become human beings, and therefore when can they and the conceptus be considered an unborn human being such that it makes it legitimate for a stranger to "speak up"and impose their value judgement over that of the pregnant woman who is providing half the genes and all of the womb.

You can re-read my posts if you wish to review in detail the reasons most people have a view very different from your own and from most of the anti-choice cadre. But here is a little illustration of the issue: I ate a nice slice of rock cod a few days ago, a fish far more developmentally advanced, independent, and intelligent than is a human embryo for much of its time in the womb. Are you assigning yourself and your friends the right to speak up for that rod cod?

3.Babies want to live? How melodramatic! Have you had any babies or lived with any? Babies can't even conceptualize what being alive is, let alone want it. Sure, they are programmed to eat and to indicate when they are distressed. So are fish. Nothing as romantic or heroic as you are trying to spin it. And there is absolutely no statistical evidence that babies survive accidents or disasters better than do adults. You are falling into the trap of reaching general conclusions from having seen anecdotal newspaper headlines, "Baby found alive in rubble 3 days after earthquake." This is not routine, which is why it makes it to a headline (plus the newspaper seeking a human interest/heart warming headline). And in cases where babies do survive it is usually because of an adult protecting the baby: keeping them in a special car seat, making extra efforts to shield the kid rather than themselves, forgoing food in a famine so that the child can eat. In some circumstances babies have some advantage: they are more compact than adults and more padded and flexible,so less likely to break bones in some impacts. Not because the baby wants to live. Hell, how insulting to imply that the tall and strong adults who die in disasters didn't want to live!

4.Is this an attempt at humor or at romantic illusion? A fertilized one cell zygote wants to live and that is why it survives in the womb? A conceptus with no nerves wants to live? Perhaps the 4 out of 5 embryos that naturally do not make it to term are suicidal?

1. There are no rights being taken away from them. The rights are being taken away from the foetus.

2. I feel desperately sorry for you if you see babies as less sentient than your disgusting meal of rock cod, which isn't even cod.

3. The instinct to suckle in a baby is extremely strong. As soon as they are born they will latch onto a mother's nipple with the ferocity and strength of an iron clamp.

4. I don't think it is relevant to try to define 'the meaning of life'. It's a discrete being from the moment of conception.

5. It's remarkable that anyone gets born at all, looking at all the hazards.

 

[Vixen]

You're wasting your breath. You'll never get a Pro-lifer to even acknowledge things like the simple fact that even if there were zero human induced abortions the vast majority of zygote/embryos/fetuses/whatever-I-don't-care-about-hairsplitting-the-terminology don't make it to viability.

The giant invisible sky wizard puts a soul in you. That's where their thought process ends.

I think that's called 'throwing your toys out of the pram'.

Poor logic. The fact there is a HUGE wastage of eggs and spermatozoa shows just how strongly we are programmed to procreate.

 

[Giordano]

1. There are no rights being taken away from them. The rights are being taken away from the foetus.

2. I feel desperately sorry for you if you see babies as less sentient than your disgusting meal of rock cod, which isn't even cod.

3. The instinct to suckle in a baby is extremely strong. As soon as they are born they will latch onto a mother's nipple with the ferocity and strength of an iron clamp.

4. I don't think it is relevant to try to define 'the meaning of life'. It's a discrete being from the moment of conception.
5. It's remarkable that anyone gets born at all, looking at all the hazards.

1. The choice was given to them by the referendum; you are advocating taking it away again. Noted but ignored that you have now switched to the term "rights"; were you planning to next argue what is a right? We can but you began this exchanging discussing choice and I am getting tired of this flip-flopping.

2. Don't feel sorry for me: my fillet of rock cod was actually quite good, and non-sentient as presented on the plate. If you bothered to read the post you quoted you know that I don't believe a 6 month fetus is less sentient than a live rock cod; just far less intelligent.

3. Baby mice latch onto their moms just as instinctively and as powerfully. Nothing special about human babies. But we are not talking about born babies anyway, are we?

4. Nothing I've posted relates to the meaning of life, or even when is the beginning of life or even discrete life. It all relates to when is the beginning of a human being.

5. Yeah, it is pretty amazing that all the complex biology works as often as it does and many fertilization make it to term. But it sure happens often enough: there are 7 billion people on the planet and the population is getting bigger each year!

Frankly this is just covering the same ground over and over and I don't even see how to discuss the interesting and most relevant ideas if you don't actually address the points I bring up and instead distort them or go off on side tracks. I am very happy with the arguments and points I've already made and which stand unrebutted. I'm not abandoning the thread but I for now will probably wait for something new worth commenting on.

 

[catsmate]

"Anti-choice"? Women have all of the choices.

Right... What fantasy world are you living in?

Someone has to stick up for the choices of the unborn.

Like forcing women to risk their lives?

Babies want to live.

Even newborns are marginally capable of wanting anything.

In any earthquake, it is the hardy baby who will survive for days underneath rubble whilst the tall and strong perish.

Myth.

It is the sheer will to survive that even gets them through nine months.

Utter nonsense.

 

[arthwollipot]

Babies want to live.

A cluster of cells doesn't want anything. It doesn't even have a functioning brain. There is nothing there to do the wanting.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

As I said, one thing I always find strange is that the concept of 'rights of fetus' seems to stop at birth.

Lets see what it, in my opinion, should entail.

Someone who is serious enough about an abortion to go trough with it clearly is unwilling or unable to have a child at that time in their life.
If the state mandates that such a woman carries the child to term, regardless of her wishes, then the stat should also be responsible for that child after it is born, as well as looking after the emotional well-being of the woman forced to undergo pregnancy and birth.

This would mean counselling the mother and keeping tabs on her to make sure she does not suffer any more trauma from the state's orders to give birth.

After the birth, it is then the state's responsibility to give the child a stable environment by ensuring a good adoption, or, lacking responsible parents, a good state run orphanage. Since just giving children to people and shoving money at them is a recipe for disaster a regulatory agency needs to be set up to make sure abuse is kept to a minimum.
The state should then provide for the best possible education, healthcare and set up a trust fund so the child can have a stable start in life once they turn 18.
Just raising a child would probably cost about $250000 or so, add the college fund and the bureaucracy that needs to be set up and I'd guess that would go to $350000 or so. Per child.

Now it would be unfair to force this tax upon the general population as not everybody is anti-choice. However, since the vast majority of anti-choice population is religious, the problem could be solved by introducing a special tax on religious institutions, with the caveat that the money raised that way will be only used to give fetuses rights until they are 18.

Vixen, The Big Dog, would this be a law you would accept? After all it would ensure no more legal abortions?

 

[xjx388]

I am all for each community setting it’s own standards for abortion. It’s an emotional issue with wide disagreement so it’s the only way -arbitrary lines are a necessary evil in the abortion debate. As such, the people of Ireland have spoken.

I do however advocate that people actually be able to back up their opinions about where they decide to draw those lines. A newborn for example, isn’t very intelligent or independently viable at all. Much less intelligent and able to exist independently than a cow or a chicken. It seems to me that, logically speaking, if you draw a line at intelligence or viability, you could conceivably draw the line at some point after birth. Thus, those reference points don’t seem to be much use.

When we are talking about ending a life, the line is very important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JesseCuster]

Magic sparks are your invention.

It was you that claimed something about 'electrical nerve impulses' at the point of conception. 'Magic sparks' is a disparaging remark about that, given that a single celled organism has no neurons or nervous system to create 'electrical nerve impulses'. You seem to have gone quiet on that claim however. I can't blame you, it was rather silly.

 

[JesseCuster]

3. The instinct to suckle in a baby is extremely strong. As soon as they are born they will latch onto a mother's nipple with the ferocity and strength of an iron clamp.

This remark is in response to a discussion about foetuses surviving pregnancy by sheer 'will to live'.

A 'will to live' implies a conscious desire to survive. Instinct is the opposite of that. The suckling instinct of a newborn baby is no more evidence of a 'will to live' than a plant growing towards the sun has 'will to live'.

This is your original claim:

It is the sheer will to survive that even gets them through nine months.

I'd love to hear a defense of that nonsense. It's sheer will that gets foetus through nine months of pregnancy?

Even in the early days when it has no brain or nervous system from which to form desires like 'will to live'?

It's the foetus's 'will to live' that allows them to survive pregnancy? Not the nurturing environment provide by the mother's womb? Not the nutrition, vitamins, minerals, etc. provided to the foetus through the mother's bloodstream? Etc. Nope, you think it's just pure determination that gets a foetus through the ordeal of being inside a pregnant woman?

Where do you get this nonsense from? Don't bother answering, I think we all know.

 

[JesseCuster]

In any earthquake, it is the hardy baby who will survive for days underneath rubble whilst the tall and strong perish. It is the sheer will to survive that even gets them through nine months.

Do you have any actual facts and figures on this or have you just read some sensationalist stories about babies surviving natural disasters and imparted some sort of mythical status upon them?

Do babies actually survive being these kind of survival situations better than an adult in the same situation after natural disasters? I'm willing to bet you have nothing resembling relevant factual information to back up this claim.

 

[catsmate]

There have been three applications seeking permission to bring petitions challenging the result of the referendum on the thirty-sixth amendment.

Usual Suspect #1 (Joanna Jordan) has made various claims regarding disenfranchisement of potential No voters (mainly nuns) and alleging irregularities in the Yes vote in conspiratorial terms. She previously failed to overturn the 2012 children's rights referendum result and had to pay costs.

Usual Suspect #2 (Charles Byrne) another serial referendum challenger alleges unfairness in comments by Yes supporting politicians and in the Referendum Commission booklet and information campaign. He also alleges wholesale disenfranchisement of nuns and others.

Appellant #3 (Ciaran Tracey) claims that the failure of the Referendum Commission to refer to the decision of the ECHR in the case of D v Ireland (concerning the circumstances surrounding abortion in Ireland for fatal foetal abnormalities) invalidated the campaign. He is representing himself.

All will be dismissed in due course. They will be heard next Monday (11JUN)

 

[Giordano]

I am all for each community setting it’s own standards for abortion. It’s an emotional issue with wide disagreement so it’s the only way -arbitrary lines are a necessary evil in the abortion debate. As such, the people of Ireland have spoken.

I do however advocate that people actually be able to back up their opinions about where they decide to draw those lines. A newborn for example, isn’t very intelligent or independently viable at all. Much less intelligent and able to exist independently than a cow or a chicken. It seems to me that, logically speaking, if you draw a line at intelligence or viability, you could conceivably draw the line at some point after birth. Thus, those reference points don’t seem to be much use.

When we are talking about ending a life, the line is very important.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah - the possibility of a real discussion presents itself! Excellent!

Actually I agree with you that there is no absolute line that can be drawn based purely on intelligence. Personally I think a newborn is more intelligent than a cow and certainly more than a chicken (there is evidence that within days of birth newborns are already beginning to catalog different sounds as language). But intelligence is a tricky thing to define and to determine, and there are different aspects to and criteria of intelligence.

And this feeds into my point in this thread, which has been that these types of ambiguities as to when gametes become a protected human being are such that different people with different philosophies or different religions can legitimately come to different conclusions. Then the key question as I see it, is when does society as a whole have a right to supersede the conclusion/judgement of the person most involved: the pregnant woman. And my conclusion is: when the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.

Although I understand your intent when you state that newborns are not "independently viable" at all, I believe that you are using a very different definition of independence than the one I believe is most important in this discussion. Certainly a newborn needs to be taken care of by someone - but that need not be its biological mom (or dad). It is independent enough that the biological parents can give up their newborn to others for that care: adoption, foster parenting, etc. In fact as far as I know the law throughout the USA permits this: a newborn can be turned over to child protective services, religious organizations, private adoption agencies, etc. with no legal penalty to the mom. Society does not require the mom to raise that child.

So as I see it a newborn is fully "viable" and biologically "independent". Not independent from the need of adult care but independent from the need of care by a specific mom who may not wish or be able to provide that care. This is what makes a newborn completely different from a fetus. It also addresses why we also protect adults with severe brain damage - they need the care of others, but they are not implanted in the body of another person against their will.

 

[Cleon]

Magic sparks are your invention.

Seems like an accurate description of the "electric nerve impulses" that you think happen at conception, despite the complete lack of nerve cells at that point.

 

[Darat]

It was you that claimed something about 'electrical nerve impulses' at the point of conception. 'Magic sparks' is a disparaging remark about that, given that a single celled organism has no neurons or nervous system to create 'electrical nerve impulses'. You seem to have gone quiet on that claim however. I can't blame you, it was rather silly.

Because I short-circuited the spark of life nonsense!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Because I short-circuited the spark of life nonsense!

How can you deny "that elusive (who's your favourite character from Star Trek) Spark!" ?

 

[Thor 2]

I think that's called 'throwing your toys out of the pram'.

Poor logic. The fact there is a HUGE wastage of eggs and spermatozoa shows just how strongly we are programmed to procreate.

No, no, no, all it shows is how badly designed* our reproductive system is.

Par for the course however with so many other flaws we know of.

* Not designed at all of course - evolved.