A Post 8th Amendment world - Culture of Death


Again, the rights are not created at 12 weeks, they’re created at birth.

The 12 weeks is an arbitrary limit on the right of the mother to terminate.

If you are arguing that arbitrary things shouldn’t be in the law, then you’ll end up with no limit on the right of the mother to terminate, which I don’t think is what you are advocating for, is it?

But we have lots of arbitrary things in the law, like motor vehicle speed limits, and blood alcohol limits, and sentencing guidelines, and pension ages, and and…they’re everywhere.


Why do I have the right to drive a car at 16 years old, but not 15 years and 364 days?

Why am I allowed to be held criminally responsible for my actions at 10 years old, but not 9 years and 364 days?

Why can I legally drink alcohol at 18 years old, but not 17 years and 364 days?

All rights are arbitrary.


@Eschatologist & @tinneym
What are your definitions of a “right”?


How is the gestational time period determined?


Post-abortion it is determined by collecting all the bits together and measuring the fetal foot length.


In this context, a legal entitlement.


Are you familiar with any other definitions of a “right”?


I suspect we come from different ends of the social spectrum. In my experience the young generation have a better quality of life than I have had and way better than my parents. Young people today casually travel to parts of the world my parents would never even have heard of or would only have seen on TV - if they had one. Never mind an iPhone. I know this is The PropertyPin and for this generation property/tenancy is a serious issue, but there is much more to quality of life than owning a property.


Ok, let’s start with your red herring at the end: most of those things are set according to a balance of freedoms and a hierarchy of rights. For instance, I may enjoy fast driving but I don’t have the right to endanger your life in the process. This is not arbitrary (which would mean that any speed limit is as good as any other) but is a matter of legislators exercising sound judgement.

So now we’ve legislated away any acknowledgement of the rights of the unborn, and you’ve agreed that the twelve week limit is arbitrary, and furthermore that the unborn has no rights at any stage. So what justification do you have for not extending abortion “rights” up to full term? There is no balance of rights to consider, since the unborn doesn’t have any. Why would abortion rights advocates (of which you seem to be one) stop at 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or 36 weeks? Alternatively, if it is a matter of legislative “sound judgement”, what arguments could/should be considered? Can you think of anything other than the squeamishness of the population versus unfettered abortophilia. If so, consider that the population’s squeamishness with on-demand abortion has disappeared in the space of the last 12 months. Why not go further?


Sure. This whole debate is about codifying moral rights and wrongs into legal ones.


Would you consider these “moral rights” to be arbitrary, subjective and culturally specific?


That would require a long answer which I can’t be bothered to write. Maybe we could just cut to the chase and you outline where you’re going with this line of argument.


You don’t have to give a long answer. Where do the “moral rights” come from?


Do you ever actually read what you write and preach and sense check it against what the side you support does ?

Because in case you haven’t noticed The typical young Yes Campaigner has shown zero conciliation, empathy or understanding for the No position. As I said, there’s no great wrestling or reflection going on in arriving at their views. They see it as a self evident thing. Women’s healthcare etc.

There has been no hesitation among the Yes side on this thread or the MSM to ascribe mindsets to No campaigners, why wouldn’t I do the same. I didn’t call them snowflakes. They are a product of their environments - small families, little experience of babies, and a growing society wide narcissism. The self same people shouting for bodily autonomy will in the next hour post a selfie to use the oxygen of others people’s attention to validate their fragile unautonomous sense of selves.

What I actually detect in you and TI is that you can see the baby holocaust coming and you’re getting a bit of cold feet about it. You want the No voices to engage with abortion and temper the holocaust you’ve contributed to.

Savita was a big part of the Yes side winning. Depending on who you listen to, She either did or didn’t die because she hadn’t been granted the abortion she requested. A PLP act was passed using her martyrdom. But she was such a powerful martyr against the constitutional ban that the Yes side couldn’t resist reheating the outrage as a battering ram for abortion on demand. Well, shame on you all for that.


Our humanity.


Thank you for answering my questions.

What I was getting at was the distinction between legal rights and natural rights.

imho, this distinction was not well explained or discussed in the context of this referendum.


What? You’re telling me I said something that I did not. And when I point that out to you, you roll your eyes. You’re some troll.


We’re wildly off topic; but, yes, there’s more to life than owning a property, however, feeling that you can afford a place of your own (never mind owning one) by the time you’re ready to settle down is pretty important. In the context of the current thread, not being able to afford a place while you’re at child bearing age is relevant. Yes, weekends away are cheaper. Yes, electronic geegaws are cheaper. Then again, they don’t piss away nearly as much as we did when I was young going down the pub… :wink:


No, but the population, by voting yes, have agreed to unlimited up to 12 weeks. The No side say it is so.


They get to wander around Australia and we got to wander around the streets unfettered. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.