woman dies for want of a abortion

[Eamonnca1]

Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present

I categorically did NOT use the phrase "human life." It's a misleadingly general term that is used by anti-abortion people. Nor did I say "life is present." That's another misleading term.

My point is about "sentient" life. A fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not sentient.

Well if you had replied to my post instead of this current pedantic tangent youd find I had already replied to that... if it is associated with brain activity (and that is a big if) then that is present on week 5 of a pregnancy. Besides what form of life is not sentient exactly? even grass turns to face light after all.

Do you believe that a human embroyo is not "human life" or that "life is not present"? It contains human cells and DNA that will be present throughout the lifecyle as it grows to become an infant, child and adult. Im left wondering at what point would you consider "life to be present" exactly?

I don't use terms like "human life" or "life is present" in this debate because these are inaccurate terms that anti-abortion people insist on using to muddy the waters.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the exact moment when an embryo becomes sentient, I'll leave that to the experts. I'm saying that at the early stages of a pregnancy we are dealing with a bunch of cells with no functioning brain, no central nervous system, and no ability to feel pain. What happens after birth is irrelevant to this debate, the fact that an embryo has the potential to become a fully formed human is irrelevant. We're talking about what it is at the moment when an abortion is required, not what it could be thirty years hence. If you want to go down that road then you're getting into "every sperm is sacred" territory.

[Franko]

See you think you're being respectful but you're actually a condescending, patronising, arrogant gobshite who thinks his views and morals should matter more than what's going on in someone's life. Shove your holier than thou attitude up your hypocritical arse.

Thankfully the world is moving on and the likes of you and Fearon and your oppressive, intrusive views are increasingly in the minority. The eighth amendment will be repealed and there won't be a thing you can do about it.

Guy who comes out with this mouthful complains about a lack of reasonable discussion.

Jesus wept

[gallsman]

And I stand by it. Anyone who comes out with, essentially, "my friend was raped and had a baby and kept it because she was surrounded by people who love her therefore anyone can and should do it" can f**k off as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider that kind of bullshit attitude to be reasonable discussion either.

[Franko]

And I stand by it. Anyone who comes out with, essentially, "my friend was raped and had a baby and kept it because she was surrounded by people who love her therefore anyone can and should do it" can f**k off as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider that kind of bullshit attitude to be reasonable discussion either.

Righty oh stew.  Fire away.

Rois was right.  This is gonna be a nasty one.

[omaghjoe]

Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present

I categorically did NOT use the phrase "human life." It's a misleadingly general term that is used by anti-abortion people. Nor did I say "life is present." That's another misleading term.

My point is about "sentient" life. A fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not sentient.

Well if you had replied to my post instead of this current pedantic tangent youd find I had already replied to that... if it is associated with brain activity (and that is a big if) then that is present on week 5 of a pregnancy. Besides what form of life is not sentient exactly? even grass turns to face light after all.

Do you believe that a human embroyo is not "human life" or that "life is not present"? It contains human cells and DNA that will be present throughout the lifecyle as it grows to become an infant, child and adult. Im left wondering at what point would you consider "life to be present" exactly?

I don't use terms like "human life" or "life is present" in this debate because these are inaccurate terms that anti-abortion people insist on using to muddy the waters.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the exact moment when an embryo becomes sentient, I'll leave that to the experts. I'm saying that at the early stages of a pregnancy we are dealing with a bunch of cells with no functioning brain, no central nervous system, and no ability to feel pain. What happens after birth is irrelevant to this debate, the fact that an embryo has the potential to become a fully formed human is irrelevant. We're talking about what it is at the moment when an abortion is required, not what it could be thirty years hence. If you want to go down that road then you're getting into "every sperm is sacred" territory.

Human life is present whether you like it or not.  As I said before a genome containing a DNA pattern is the accepted criteria for the presence of an individual lifeform. And from conception the same DNA pattern is created and exists throughout the life-cycle.
IF you are uncomfortable using factual terms because of which side of a an argument they may lead too you should perhaps reevaluate the facts instead of looking backwards from your conclusion.
The only thing muddying the waters is those trying to disassociate a human embryo with being human.

The only thing that "the experts" or anyone else can be sure about sentience is whether they themselves either have it or they dont. I know I have it, I can never truly know about you but I believe you probably do. I would say with certainty that no one knows how and when it develops in the womb. Its not part of my reasoning anyway as regarding the morality of abortions  so its irrelevant to me.....but then dont you believe consciousness is an illusion anyway? So Im not even sure why its even relevant to your reasoning either.
And besides if you are associating it with brain activity, which is present in week 5, is that your cutoff?

[Eamonnca1]

Human life is present whether you like it or not. 

Is it sentient?

.....but then dont you believe consciousness is an illusion anyway?

No. "illusion" implies that you think something is there that is not there. Consciousness very much is there.

And besides if you are associating it with brain activity, which is present in week 5, is that your cutoff?

Roughly speaking, yes. But it's all academic because the principle of bodily autonomy still applies.

[omaghjoe]

Human life is present whether you like it or not. 

Is it sentient?

Yes, Human life is present and it is has a degree of sentiently like almost all lifeforms.
But not sure how it relevant to you anymore as you've already said below that it doesnt matter to your position on this.

.....but then dont you believe consciousness is an illusion anyway?

No. "illusion" implies that you think something is there that is not there. Consciousness very much is there.

The only feasible answer to these questions from a physics point of view is that consciousness is an illusion

Yes. A very cool illusion though.

It was a wile back but your entitled to change your position on this if you want

And besides if you are associating it with brain activity, which is present in week 5, is that your cutoff?

Roughly speaking, yes. But it's all academic because the principle of bodily autonomy still applies.

Well that was a pointless exercise then... so brain activity, consciousness or anything else that we were discussing have nothing to do with your position on this after all?
Or maybe your just rather crudely shifting the goalposts....Ill take a shot at them all the same tho....
When should we ask that human life for consent to suck its body into a hover? at a point where it can communicate or just assume that it wants to be ripped apart before it can communicate

[omaghjoe]

1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

[Puckoon]

I know it's the same language but no amount of mind altering processes or materials can make me understand you on these threads. And weed is legal here.

[Milltown Row2]

Abortions are going to happen, whether the pro life men on here like it or not, thousands stream across to England to have these unwanted pregnancies terminated. That's fact, arguing over when life begins is pointless also.. none of the posters here bar one will actually have to deal with that...

Should it be legalised here then the argument of how many weeks can be debated but the government health department will fix a period I'm sure and a criteria for abortions...

Surely it's better they have them here than having to go to Britain or backstreet abortions being done in non medical 'clinics'

Like I said before this isn't black or white, too many variables, steadfastly against it for any reason is wrong and willynilly reasons to do it is wrong also

[seafoid]

For years Unionists used to point out how socially conservative the south was. The North had divorce. The South did not.
This abortion thing is a game changer . The South will have Gay marriage and abortion. The North will have DUP/Taliban.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-iran-on-the-bann-is-facing-a-new-social-border-1.3375253

[Esmarelda]

1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

Why would you provide a legal context only? For what purpose?

[Lazer]

Although the pro-life posters on here are mostly men, not all pro-lifers are men.

I am female, and I do not agree with abortion on demand for social reasons.

In England the rules on abortion were (possibly still are officially) that the mother health must be at risk, that has been interpreted widely to mean I a woman wants an abortion, if she doesn't get her mental health will be at risk, so therefore all abortion requests are signed off by the required 2 doctors.

So even with a caveat such as all women looking an abortion, must receive therapy, or only allowed in certain circumstances etc, the danger is that this effectively becomes abortion on demand.

Cases such as rape and fetal abnormalities are more complex, although for fetal abnormalities is it ok for someone to decide which abnormalities qualify, my sister was born with a fetal abnormality and lived for 4 months, now in todays world this would have picked up in a scan, and would by mum have been right to have a abortion?
Would aborting a much wanted child be any less traumatic than giving birth, and the child dying after a short length of time? Should she have the right to deny my sister her life?

I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does.

Its a complicated issue from a moral point of view but my personal belief is that except in exceptional circumstance, where the mothers life is in danger, and the medical procedure required means an abortion is necessary, then I would be anti-abortion.

[Milltown Row2]

Good for you, solid post from someone who's seen some sides to the questions asked.. not easy on anyone, but these things need to looked at case by case before just shouting Prolife!!

[Syferus]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.