Legalise abortion

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What, in YOUR eyes makes “human” so important? I have already said what part of us is important to me.

It's when you're held to define that 'part' that you get a bit fuzzy and unsure...

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

I think it's a little disingenous to speculate or split hairs as to whether or not an embryonic human "looks human" or not. What else would it look like???? It doesn't look human, it is human. However what I mean is that the discernable characteristics of it's humanity are becoming clearer, eg face, arms, legs, hands etc.

I am not. I think how it looks is entirely irrelevant. I was directing my post at people who think what it looks like should influence how we act towards it morally. I think what it LOOKS like is irrelevant.

There are people who go around showing pictures of these embryos and say “Look it has hands, a nose, a face even fingers…. It looks human, therefore it should have human rights”.

I really think how it LOOKS is entirely irrelevant. A mannequin has what looks like human faces, arms, legs etc too. Clearly we do not treat them as equals? Why? Because it is not what it LOOKS like that we decide these things on. We go to something _else_ for that. And it is what you think that _else_ is that I am asking you to elaborate on.

The “discernible” characteristics of it merely being of species “human” are clear from the very start by looking at the DNA of the sperm, egg and zygote. We do not have to wait for “hands” to form to classify it by species. Clearly species classification is not enough. Why do "humans" get a right to life and "cows" do not? What is special about the classification?

Hugo Drax

drkpower wrote: »

First, the suggestion illegal always equals immoral is at least a little dubious. But that's a whole other can of worms.

On this issue, you might want to look at what our law says about abortion/the unborn. Amongst other things, it says the following:

1. Pre-implantation embryos have no protection.
2. The 'threat' of suicide is valid and legal grounds for abortion, up until birth.

The only reason the latter has not been acted upon yet is because of the medical professions ethical guidelines and their innate conservatism. But if a clinic opened up tomorrow offering abortions for women at 38 weeks gestation where there was a 'threat of suicide', it would be entirely legal under current Irish law.

Does that make it permissable or acceptable?
Does that make it moral?

You'll have to refer me to the exact statutory provision that allows for that....

Secondly, I would hardly describe the medical professions reluctance to perform "abortions" as "innate conservatism". After all they're merely honouring their hypocratic oath to preserve life when they refuse to kill an unborn child!!!!

Obviously in the case of suicide, the big picture of saving the mothers life has to override that of the child but I assume in this instance that the threat of suicide has to be evaluated by an eminent psychiatrist.

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not. I think how it looks is entirely irrelevant. I was directing my post at people who think what it looks like should influence how we act towards it morally. I think what it LOOKS like is irrelevant.

There are people who go around showing pictures of these embryos and say “Look it has hands, a nose, a face even fingers…. It looks human, therefore it should have human rights”.

I really think how it LOOKS is entirely irrelevant. A mannequin has what looks like human faces, arms, legs etc too. Clearly we do not treat them as equals? Why? Because it is not what it LOOKS like that we decide these things on. We go to something _else_ for that. And it is what you think that _else_ is that I am asking you to elaborate on.

The “discernible” characteristics of it merely being of species “human” are clear from the very start by looking at the DNA of the sperm, egg and zygote. We do not have to wait for “hands” to form to classify it by species. Clearly species classification is not enough. Why do "humans" get a right to life and "cows" do not? What is special about the classification?

True, it's not about how it LOOKS, it's about what it IS and what it IS in an embryonic human being.

Believe it or not, you were one yourself once.

Aren't you glad Mammy didn't "abort" you?;)

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

I assume in this instance that the threat of suicide has to be evaluated by an eminent psychiatrist.

I would hope so.

I am pro-choice and you are not I think, but one thing we can agree on I imagine is that the idea that a law can be broken because the person who wants to break it has a tantrum and cries „suicide“ is of no use to us at all.

Murder is morally wrong in our opinion. I should not be allowed murder you just because I say “If you don’t let me murder him I am going to go top myself”.

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not. I think how it looks is entirely irrelevant. I was directing my post at people who think what it looks like should influence how we act towards it morally. I think what it LOOKS like is irrelevant.

There are people who go around showing pictures of these embryos and say “Look it has hands, a nose, a face even fingers…. It looks human, therefore it should have human rights”.

I really think how it LOOKS is entirely irrelevant. A mannequin has what looks like human faces, arms, legs etc too. Clearly we do not treat them as equals? Why? Because it is not what it LOOKS like that we decide these things on. We go to something _else_ for that. And it is what you think that _else_ is that I am asking you to elaborate on.

The “discernible” characteristics of it merely being of species “human” are clear from the very start by looking at the DNA of the sperm, egg and zygote. We do not have to wait for “hands” to form to classify it by species. Clearly species classification is not enough. Why do "humans" get a right to life and "cows" do not? What is special about the classification?

Your reasoning seems to be that all species should have equal rights.

True, I agree.

All of historys most enlightened minds have argued that we have no right to slaughter animals for food, just because we can.

True.

BUT that doesn't change the fact that we are still several evolutionary rungs above a cow for example and the loss of an eminent geophysicist is certainly more grevious than that of Milly the cow, however agreeable her milk may be.;)

Soccertainer

SLUSK wrote: »

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

What a silly thread to create, whether you are for or against abortion is irrelevant, your point about abortion to reduce crime is ridiculous. People like you should have their genitals removed.

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would hope so.

I am pro-choice and you are not I think, but one thing we can agree on I imagine is that the idea that a law can be broken because the person who wants to break it has a tantrum and cries „suicide“ is of no use to us at all.

Murder is morally wrong in our opinion. I should not be allowed murder you just because I say “If you don’t let me murder him I am going to go top myself”.

Phew!

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Believe it or not, you were one yourself once.

Aren't you glad Mammy didn't "abort" you?;)

Irrelevant. What a being with choice would choose in retrospect is completely irrelevant to assuming what a being with no choice MIGHT choose when and IF its coming to term is successful and they attain that right of choice.

In retrospect I am grateful for my life having had it. Had I been aborted I would have lost nothing, as I had nothing to lose.

However this approach to the abortion argument is One I am more than aware of.

Hugo Drax

Soccertainer wrote: »

What a silly thread to create, whether you are for or against abortion is irrelevant, your point about abortion to reduce crime is ridiculous. People like you should have their genitals removed.

Actually it used to be the law in the USA that habitual criminals and "imbeciles" were subject to compulsory sterilisation in some US States.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Your reasoning seems to be that all species should have equal rights.

No this is actually not my position. I think that only humans have rights. I have espoused over many pages why I think that. I am just wondering why YOU think it other than the label “human”

I actually think no animal other than us has "rights" as such as "rights" is not even something that exists and is not a characteristic that anything actually possesses. It is something entirely subjective which we assign.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

BUT that doesn't change the fact that we are still several evolutionary rungs above a cow for example and the loss of an eminent geophysicist is certainly more grevious than that of Milly the cow, however agreeable her milk may be.;)

I know what you mean but alas this is entirely subjective. There is no "Above" and "below" or even "more evolved" in terms of evolution as it has no targets or ideals. All animals, ourselves included, are merely evolved to fit into the environment which formed them. All appeals to "above" are purely species-ist subjectivity with no basis that I am currently aware of.

PS love your reply to the pointless throw away genitals comment you were pitifully slapped at with.

drkpower

Hugo Drax wrote: »

You'll have to refer me to the exact statutory provision that allows for that....

Obviously in the case of suicide, the big picture of saving the mothers life has to override that of the child but I assume in this instance that the threat of suicide has to be evaluated by an eminent psychiatrist.

Hugo, there is nothing in Irish statutory law about abortion; I'd have thought you would be aware of that when you set out your views on Irish abortion law....;) But it is in the X case judgment, which sets out the basis of our law on abortion. Google it.

As for whether 'threat' of suicide needing to be evaluated by an 'eminent psychiatrist', that isnt clear. Any old psychiatrist would probably do; a psychologist would probably do (in fact, a psychologist was the only person who assessed Ms X back then); and arguably the X case judgment simply needs a 'threat' of suicide, rather than an 'independently verified threat', but that interpretation is very arguable.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Secondly, I would hardly describe the medical professions reluctance to perform "abortions" as "innate conservatism". After all they're merely honouring their hypocratic oath to preserve life when they refuse to kill an unborn child!!!!.

They kill 'unborn children' all the time. Medical council guidelines allow for the wilful destruction of frozen embryos.

But to reiterate my point, a doctor could, if he wanted to (and if the medical councils guidelines changed), set up an abortion clinic perfectly legally in this country as long as he offered abortions to women who expressed a 'threat of suicide'. So, does the fact that it is legal make it moral, permisable or acceptable.

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No this is actually not my position. I think that only humans have rights. I have espoused over many pages why I think that. I am just wondering why YOU think it other than the label “human”

I actually think no animal other than us has "rights" as such as "rights" is not even something that exists and is not a characteristic that anything actually possesses. It is something entirely subjective which we assign.



I know what you mean but alas this is entirely subjective. There is no "Above" and "below" or even "more evolved" in terms of evolution as it has no targets or ideals. All animals, ourselves included, are merely evolved to fit into the environment which formed them. All appeals to "above" are purely species-ist subjectivity with no basis that I am currently aware of.

PS love your reply to the pointless throw away genitals comment you were pitifully slapped at with.

True but we have actually transcended evolution itself to develop ourselves as a species, through medicine and science we have enlarged our lifespans, physical capabilities etc.

No other species on earth has bent evolution to it's own ends as we have, therefore I would submit that we are more "evolved" than animals.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drk, it would appear to me that you are against this abortion in the case of threat of suicide. Would I be right?

Good to know that despite all our disagreements thus far, there are SOME things we agree on. Despite being pro-choice I find this argument about suicidal threats to be a wholly awful one and I baulk when pro-choice people use it.

Hugo Drax

drkpower wrote: »

Hugo, there is nothing in Irish statutory law about abortion; I'd have thought you would be aware of that when you set out your views on Irish abortion law....;) But it is in the X case judgment, which sets out the basis of our law on abortion. Google it.

As for whether 'threat' of suicide needing to be evaluated by an 'eminent psychiatrist', that isnt clear. Any old psychiatrist would probably do; a psychologist would probably do (in fact, a psychologist was the only person who assessed Ms X back then); and arguably the X case judgment simply needs a 'threat' of suicide, rather than an 'independently verified threat', but that interpretation is very arguable.



They kill 'unborn children' all the time. Medical council guidelines allow for the wilful destruction of frozen embryos.

But to reiterate my point, a doctor could, if he wanted to (and if the medical councils guidelines changed), set up an abortion clinic perfectly legally in this country as long as he offered abortions to women who expressed a 'threat of suicide'. So, does the fact that it is legal make it moral, permisable or acceptable.

Well we won't get into the murky waters of how psychiatry regards psychology as a pseudo science....

"If the medical councils guidelines changed"...if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle!!

They're not going to change anytime soon. And you are not addressing the point, they don't perform "abortions" for ethical reasons, the ethical reason being it violates their hypocratic oath.

drkpower

Nozz, on the basis of a 'threat', I certainly dont agree with it. But if that 'threat' was properly and professionally assessed as genuine, then I would agree with it. I understand that it is quite rare that someone would be genuinely suicidal as a result of finding themselves pregnant, but it does happen.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

True but we have actually transcended evolution itself to develop ourselves as a species, through medicine and science we have enlarged our lifespans, physical capabilities etc.

No other species on earth has bent evolution to it's own ends as we have, therefore I would submit that we are more "evolved" than animals.

Again this is subjective. Despite all our „bending“ we still have not achieved half of what some animals have achieved. Our species longevity for example is nothing when compared to the cockroach.

Similarly minor fluctuations in our planet or our environment could wipe us out instantly. We are up there in the top groups of delicate species and we live on what is essentially a knife edge.

There are creatures however that would survive many of the catastrophes that would shuffle off our collective mortal coils in an instant. There are creatures that adapt naturally to changes faster than we ever could. There are even those very recently discovered that are redefining our definitions of “life” by actually living entirely devoid of any oxygen whatsoever.

And despite false claims, such as biblical claims, that we have dominion over all life, it appears these little buggers have survived nearly every attempt we make to wipe them out, they keep coming back, and we live in constant fear of the dominion they have over us.

As I said, “Higher” or “more” evolved really is a matter of very subjective perspective. We are very far from as special as we give ourselves credit for in our natural human arrogance.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Nozz, on the basis of a 'threat', I certainly dont agree with it. But if that 'threat' was properly and professionally assessed as genuine, then I would agree with it. I understand that it is quite rare that someone would be genuinely suicidal as a result of finding themselves pregnant, but it does happen.

Ah well our agreement only goes so far then. But at least there is SOME common ground eh? Such starting points are indispensable in any discourse.

I think that termination of one of two equal being should only be done when there is no other choice. Literally no other choice.

In the threat of suicide I would prefer to treat the patient, with observation if necessary, bring her to term, protect the child and treat the patient further.

We treat medically, and observe closely, most patients that are a suicide risk. I do not see what that needs to change just because the patient is pregnant, nor do I see why a child has to pay with its life because of another’s illness when other courses of action are available.

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again this is subjective. Despite all our „bending“ we still have not achieved half of what some animals have achieved. Our species longevity for example is nothing when compared to the cockroach.

Similarly minor fluctuations in our planet or our environment could wipe us out instantly. We are up there in the top groups of delicate species and we live on what is essentially a knife edge.

There are creatures however that would survive many of the catastrophes that would shuffle off our collective mortal coils in an instant. There are creatures that adapt naturally to changes faster than we ever could. There are even those very recently discovered that are redefining our definitions of “life” by actually living entirely devoid of any oxygen whatsoever.

And despite false claims, such as biblical claims, that we have dominion over all life, it appears these little buggers have survived nearly every attempt we make to wipe them out, they keep coming back, and we live in constant fear of the dominion they have over us.

As I said, “Higher” or “more” evolved really is a matter of very subjective perspective. We are very far from as special as we give ourselves credit for in our natural human arrogance.

If we were to accept your moral code as epsoused above, then presumably the murder of any human is no worse than stepping on a cockroach am I right, since you see no more value in human life than any other?

drkpower

Hugo Drax wrote: »

"If the medical councils guidelines changed"...if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle!!.

Up until a few months ago, the medical council ethical guidelines did not allow for the destruction of frozen embryos. They just changed that....! Change does happen. But my point was not that it would happen, but merely to point to you that the mere fact of something being legal (abortion is legal in this country) does not make it moral, permissable and acceptable.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

And you are not addressing the point, they don't perform "abortions" for ethical reasons, the ethical reason being it violates their hypocratic oath.

:DThe hypocratic oath is a load of codswallop; you wont find a doctor around who can recite it or who has ever sworn it; it is purely for ER and the like!! The ethical guidelines that matter to an Irish doc are the Medical Council's ethical guidelines; breach them and you can lose your livelihood; breach the vague fuzziness of the hypocratic oath and nobody cares.

Hugo Drax

drkpower wrote: »

Up until a few months ago, the medical council ethical guidelines did not allow for the destruction of frozen embryos. They just changed that....! Change does happen. But my point was not that it would happen, but merely to point to you that the mere fact of something being legal (abortion is legal in this country) does not make it moral, permissable and acceptable.



:DThe hypocratic oath is a load of codswallop; you wont find a doctor around who can recite it or who has ever sworn it; it is purely for ER and the like!! The ethical guidelines that matter to an Irish doc are the Medical Council's ethical guidelines; breach them and you can lose your livelihood; breach the vague fuzziness of the hypocratic oath and nobody cares.

Well I thought you weren't allowed to practice as a Doctor until you had sworn the Hypocratic oath, maybe I'm wrong.

But from a medical perspective, I wouldn't call an oath to save life "vague fuzziness"!!

Why else would you be a doctor?

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think that termination of one of two equal being should only be done when there is no other choice. Literally no other choice.

Really? Do you?

A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%.

Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

If we were to accept your moral code as epsoused above, then presumably the murder of any human is no worse than stepping on a cockroach am I right, since you see no more value in human life than any other?

Not at all. I have already espoused in this now long thread why I DO think Human life is more important in such discussions than any other. I explained also when I think that becomes important (not at conception, later).

What I am doing is playing a little devils advocate by saying that it is not immediately apparent what the argument you are making for humans being more important than cockroaches actually is and I am exploring it with you. I know why *I* think it is, I am just looking to explore why YOU think it is.

Clearly people here are espousing that a human zygote just after conception trumps a cow zygote just after conception, and even a fully grown and living cow. I want to know why they think this. I want to hear the reasons, other than reasons which I often do hear from some of them such as “I think there is a magical sky fairy god who puts something in there at conception and to abort that is against that entities plan”. An entity they have quite literally in 20 years of me asking provided NOTHING to support lending any credence to the existence of.

As I said ““Higher” or “more” evolved really is a matter of very subjective perspective.”. I know what my perspective is. I am just keen to explore yours.

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all. I have already espoused in this now long thread why I DO think Human life is more important in such discussions than any other. I explained also when I think that becomes important (not at conception, later).

What I am doing is playing a little devils advocate by saying that it is not immediately apparent what the argument you are making for humans being more important than cockroaches actually is and I am exploring it with you. I know why *I* think it is, I am just looking to explore why YOU think it is.

Clearly people here are espousing that a human zygote just after conception trumps a cow zygote just after conception, and even a fully grown and living cow. I want to know why they think this. I want to hear the reasons, other than reasons which I often do hear from some of them such as “I think there is a magical sky fairy god who puts something in there at conception and to abort that is against that entities plan”. An entity they have quite literally in 20 years of me asking provided NOTHING to support lending any credence to the existence of.

As I said ““Higher” or “more” evolved really is a matter of very subjective perspective.”. I know what my perspective is. I am just keen to explore yours.

God doesn't come into it.

It's a simple question of the law and morality.

It's morally wrong to kill a human being, ergo it is wrong to kill a human being at embryonic level.

It is also illegal for precisely that reason.

drkpower

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Well I thought you weren't allowed to practice as a Doctor until you had sworn the Hypocratic oath, maybe I'm wrong.

But from a medical perspective, I wouldn't call an oath to save life "vague fuzziness"!!

Why else would you be a doctor?

You are wrong:p. They Hypocratic oath is a piece of well meaning jargon. It has no real relevence legally or ethically today, except insofar as it may have been the inspiration behind some current ethical principles.

Hugo Drax

drkpower wrote: »

You are wrong:p. They Hypocratic oath is a piece of well meaning jargon. It has no real relevence legally or ethically today, except insofar as it may have been the inspiration behind some current ethical principles.

Fair enough but the question still stands,

Why else would you be a doctor if not to uphold and preserve life??

That's not "fuzzyness"

StealthRolex

Does anyone think we are going about this the wrong way?

The OP had a eugenic proposal to prevent bad seeds growing up from poor backgrounds. The thread is now discussing the relative morality of the procedure. So be it.

How about we see how we could prevent abortions.

Personally I think every woman should have the right to choose to get pregnant or not to get pregnant.
Once pregnant I do not agree with women having the right to kill the baby. You'ver probably worked that bit out from my earlier posts.

So what about a sex licence? Most of us here realize that women get pregnant after sexual activity which leads to semen entering the vaginal tract. This is one of the reasons why condoms are used as contraceptives as well as in disease transmission prevention. Apologies to those who know this already but I what to be sure we all understand each other.

Now, if there was a law that made it illegal to have sex without a licence it would go some way to making the activity safer.
Like a driving licence it does not make the activity entirely safe but if we did not have a regulated driving licence system in this country the roads would probably be not as safe as they are.

The way I envisage it working is you do a theory course and then take an exam. If you pass this exam you take a practical test with a professional tester.
They would ensure you know how everything works, how to correctly apply condoms, which activities will not risk pregnancy and so on.
Once you pass this test you get your licence and if you are caught having sex without it you get fined or imprisoned or both.
Insurance would be mandatory, just as in a driving licence, with a fee to cover the eventualities and assist in the medical care and adoption\childcare costs later should there be " accident".

Realistically we cannot prevent people from having sex any more than we can prevent people driving without a licence, whether the car is obtained legally or not, however we should be able to do all in our power to ensure those who are active are doing so in a safe and reliable manner.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's a simple question of the law and morality.

It's morally wrong to kill a human being, ergo it is wrong to kill a human being at embryonic level.

But again this comes down to your definition of what, in the context of a discussion on morality and abortion, constitutes a „human being“. The term itself is one of those flexible ones that can change as people need it to change. Right now it suits you to define it as everything from conception on. However in a discussion on morality and rights I find it more useful to include actual personhood etc in a definition used in that context.

And I find nothing of personhood or anything warranting rights in a foetus, certainly not up to and including 16 weeks and others have suggested and insisted my arguments can be applied beyond that time too.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Why else would you be a doctor if not to uphold and preserve life??

I could think of many motivations for being a doctor.

Money is one depending on the field.

Parental pressure is another considering the respect the field gets.

Maybe because you want to uphold the free access to and application of modern medical procedures, abortion and cosmetic surgery etc included is another.

I could go on, but suffice to say I do not think protecting life is the only motivation to go into the medical field.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does anyone think we are going about this the wrong way?

The OP had a eugenic proposal to prevent bad seeds growing up from poor backgrounds. The thread is now discussing the relative morality of the procedure. So be it.

How about we see how we could prevent abortions.

Personally I think every woman should have the right to choose to get pregnant or not to get pregnant.
Once pregnant I do not agree with women having the right to kill the baby. You'ver probably worked that bit out from my earlier posts.

So what about a sex licence? Most of us here realize that women get pregnant after sexual activity which leads to semen entering the vaginal tract. This is one of the reasons why condoms are used as contraceptives as well as in disease transmission prevention. Apologies to those who know this already but I what to be sure we all understand each other.

Now, if there was a law that made it illegal to have sex without a licence it would go some way to making the activity safer.
Like a driving licence it does not make the activity entirely safe but if we did not have a regulated driving licence system in this country the roads would probably be not as safe as they are.

The way I envisage it working is you do a theory course and then take an exam. If you pass this exam you take a practical test with a professional tester.
They would ensure you know how everything works, how to correctly apply condoms, which activities will not risk pregnancy and so on.
Once you pass this test you get your licence and if you are caught having sex without it you get fined or imprisoned or both.
Insurance would be mandatory, just as in a driving licence, with a fee to cover the eventualities and assist in the medical care and adoption\childcare costs later should there be " accident".

Realistically we cannot prevent people from having sex any more than we can prevent people driving without a licence, whether the car is obtained legally or not, however we should be able to do all in our power to ensure those who are active are doing so in a safe and reliable manner.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a fully accredited sex instructor.:D

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

How about we see how we could prevent abortions.

I wholly agree with this!! There is nothing wrong with this statement at all.

However I do not agree we should talk about one subject at the expense of another. Clearly we want to avoid having to have ANY medical procedure in life, but this does not mean we have to avoid ALLOWING that procedure.

I for one think everyone should have access to medical treatment for obesity or broken legs.

Clearly however a conversation on how to reduce obesity and broken legs is ALSO worth having.

But at no point should we suggest that because the latter conversation is interesting, that we should stop the former conversation or preclude people from such procedures.

In short: You are right, it is a conversation worth having. But it is worth having TOO.

It is worth noting however that many, but not all, people who are against abortion are ALSO against some things that may actually reduce the need for them (Such as, for example, the Vaticans teachings against both abortion and contraception).

However your suggestion for how to go about actually implementing this... aside from my agreement with you that we need more education on sex and contractive methods etc.... is one I am afraid I cant really join you on. It did.... make me smile though, ta

drkpower

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Fair enough but the question still stands,
Why else would you be a doctor if not to uphold and preserve life??
That's not "fuzzyness"

Yes, it is. Otherwise we wouldnt be having this debate. What one doctor considers life is not what another considers life. Or more accurately, what one doctor considers to be life worthy of protection is not what another thinks.

Frozen embryos is a perfect example; in 2009 it was ethically wrong to destroy them - now its grand, hooray!! What happpened.... did they suddenly stop being alive...?! Of course not; but a bunch of doctors (and some laymen) decided that they were not worthy of protection, that's all.

But anyway, back to where this started; does something being legal mean it is moral, acceptable or permissable?

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

God doesn't come into it.

It's a simple question of the law and morality.

It's morally wrong to kill a human being, ergo it is wrong to kill a human being at embryonic level.

It is also illegal for precisely that reason.

You are correct, it is a simple matter of the science and biology of human reproduction.

I think Nozz is having a problem differentiating bovine embryos from human if you read his post.

Hugo Drax

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, it is. Otherwise we wouldnt be having this debate. What one doctor considers life is not what another considers life. Or more accurately, what one doctor considers to be life worthy of protection is not what another thinks.

Frozen embryos is a perfect example; in 2009 it was ethically wrong to destroy them - now its grand, hooray!! What happpened.... did they suddenly stop being alive...?! Of course not; but a bunch of doctors (and some laymen) decided that they were not worthy of protection, that's all.

But anyway, back to where this started; does something being legal mean it is moral, acceptable or permissable?

The sort of Doctors you seem to envisage would be the Shipman or Mengele types, who are rirghtly condemned by society.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Why else would you be a doctor if not to uphold and preserve life??

Actually to add to my own list that I already gave you, I should have mentioned Euthanasia doctors. Clearly their motivation is not to protect life, but to end it in what they see as a correct and dignified way. Although many disagree with the action, we must at least acknowledge the purity of their motivation, misguided as SOME may think it is.

Suffice to say however, it is clear their motivation in their doctoring is NOT to uphold the longevity of the life under their care.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

You are correct, it is a simple matter of the science and biology of human reproduction.

I think Nozz is having a problem differentiating bovine embryos from human if you read his post.

When I grow up, I'm going to Bovine University!!:pac:

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually to add to my own list that I already gave you, I should have mentioned Euthanasia doctors. Clearly their motivation is not to protect life, but to end it in what they see as a correct and dignified way. Although many disagree with the action, we must at least acknowledge the purity of their motivation, misguided as SOME may think it is.

Suffice to say however, it is clear their motivation in their doctoring is NOT to uphold the longevity of the life under their care.

I don 't think there motivations are particularly pure, particularly as some of them argue for the right to enforce euthanasia without the patients consent!!

Rather like what Shipman did!

Rather like what the Nazis used to do!!

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think Nozz is having a problem differentiating bovine embryos from human if you read his post.

Not at all. I am having trouble seeing on what basis YOU distinguish them in a moral context only.

I know the difference biologically, and I know what my opinion on the difference between them morally is.

I am just curious to know what, and why, are the opinions on the latter of those two things.

Biologically the difference between cow sperm, embryos and adults, and human sperm embryoes and adults could not be much clearer.

The difference I am enquiring of from you is not biological however. It is your opinion on the moral difference.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

I don 't think there motivations are particularly pure, particularly as some of them argue for the right to enforce euthanasia without the patients consent!!

Indeed, there clearly are different classes of such doctors. I am for the practice, but not for the enforced practice myself.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Rather like what the Nazis used to do!!

I actually thought for awhile there that this thread was going to defy Godwin's law

Shame on your for ruining it.

drkpower

Hugo Drax wrote: »

The sort of Doctors you seem to envisage would be the Shipman or Mengele types, who are rirghtly condemned by society.

Hugo; you are annoying me with the content of your post, which are becoming sillier. If you are suggesting that the Medical Council, who changed the guidelines on frozen embryos are 'Shipman/Mengele-types', go for it, but at least say what you mean.

And you might answer the question where this began and which I have posed a number of times now: does something being legal mean it is moral, acceptable or permissable?

drkpower

You may have missed this one, Nozz - Ill give you another go.

Nozz wrote:

I think that termination of one of two equal being should only be done when there is no other choice. Literally no other choice.?

drkpower wrote: »

Really? Do you?

A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%.

Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

I don 't think there motivations are particularly pure, particularly as some of them argue for the right to enforce euthanasia without the patients consent!!

Rather like what Shipman did!

Rather like what the Nazis used to do!!

Not quite. Shipman was working with humans. He knew that and did not bother to reclassify them.

In contrast the Nazis decided that certain people or races could be classified as "sub-human" and thereby justify their actions - not just euthanasia but also medical experimentation.

This is similar to what happens in some abortion debates where the humanity of the new human is called into question while disregarding the entire fields of embryology and genetics.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all. I am having trouble seeing on what basis YOU distinguish them in a moral context only.

I know the difference biologically, and I know what my opinion on the difference between them morally is.

I am just curious to know what, and why, are the opinions on the latter of those two things.

Biologically the difference between cow sperm, embryos and adults, and human sperm embryoes and adults could not be much clearer.

The difference I am enquiring of from you is not biological however. It is your opinion on the moral difference.

Nozz, I take it you are in favour of abortion.

Lets say you go to a restaurant and you are presented with the most delicious meat you have ever tasted in a blind menu tasting.

You call the chef to ask what it was and how it was prepared.

The chef tells you that he sends the vet down to the farm to extract bovine fetuses of a certain age, kill them - if they were not killed by the procedure - and bring them as fresh as possible to the kitchen for preparation.

As for the preparation- steamed, boiled, fried or grilled is not really relevant to this discussion.

Would you eat in that restaurant again?

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

Nozz, on the basis of a 'threat', I certainly dont agree with it. But if that 'threat' was properly and professionally assessed as genuine, then I would agree with it. I understand that it is quite rare that someone would be genuinely suicidal as a result of finding themselves pregnant, but it does happen.

There is evidence to support an increase in suicide rates following an abortion when compared to suicide rates following delivery.

[edit] it should also be noted that birth results are the lowest and abortion the highest of all categories - no pregnancy, birth, miscarriage, induced abortion

Based on this the threat of suicide, genuine or not, is no basis to support legalized abortion, and could be used as a reason to restrict abortion further. If you let a suicidal patient have an abortion you are four times more likely to have a successful suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352979/pdf/bmj00571-0021.pdf

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is evidence to support an increase in suicide rates following an abortion when compared to suicide rates following delivery.

[edit] it should also be noted that birth results are the lowest and abortion the highest of all categories - no pregnancy, birth, miscarriage, induced abortion

Based on this the threat of suicide, genuine or not, is no basis to support legalized abortion, and could be used as a reason to restrict abortion further. If you let a suicidal patient have an abortion you are four times more likely to have a successful suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352979/pdf/bmj00571-0021.pdf

That is correct. But evidence that suicide is more likely in those who have had an abortion does not alter the reality of being faced with a pregnant woman who is at risk of suicide now. On this issue, I am in favour of assessing each individual on their merits and acting accordingly; if the professional assessment is that abortion will substantially reduce their risk of suicide (and there is no other reasonable way of so doing), I would be in favour of it - if not, or if the assessment is that she is likely to be at an increased risk of suicide post-abortion, I would not be in favour.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

I can covertly siphon money into a Swiss bank account, but that does not make it acceptable in the eyes of society or the law.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that abortion is wrong. I think there are many cases where it is the right thing to do and neither am I convinced that the fetus has an absolute right to life. However, simply calling it a woman's issue is a convenient cop out as it ignores that there are at least two other parties involved and reduces a question on human rights to a feminist cliche.

In certain sectors of society it is deemed to be prefectly acceptable and an awful lot of defacto laws exist in Ireland purley because of the way the law is or is not implemented here

Although some may think two other parties may be involved - I would say the only other party involved is the man. And for me although a man many have an opinion on this, thats all he is entitled to have.

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

That is correct. But evidence that suicide is more likely in those who have had an abortion does not alter the reality of being faced with a pregnant woman who is at risk of suicide now. On this issue, I am in favour of assessing each individual on their merits and acting accordingly; if the professional assessment is that abortion will substantially reduce their risk of suicide (and there is no other reasonable way of so doing), I would be in favour of it - if not, or if the assessment is that she is likely to be at an increased risk of suicide post-abortion, I would not be in favour.

The problem here is trying to predict the future state of mind of the patient.
The best evidence suggests that if the patient is already suicidal then the trauma of an abortion will increase the risk of her completing a suicide later.

Patients who present with suicidal thoughts are already clinically depressed and as it is known that there are long term depressive tendencies post abortion we would do well to review this more careful before we seek to base it in law. By this I mean that while the Constitution says what it says the legislation does not.

http://www.afterabortion.org/news/depressionbmj.html

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, there clearly are different classes of such doctors. I am for the practice, but not for the enforced practice myself.



I actually thought for awhile there that this thread was going to defy Godwin's law

Shame on your for ruining it.

The OP defied Godwins with the thread opener so it does not apply

StealthRolex

sparkling sea wrote: »

In certain sectors of society it is deemed to be prefectly acceptable and an awful lot of defacto laws exist in Ireland purley because of the way the law is or is not implemented here

Although some may think two other parties may be involved - I would say the only other party involved is the man. And for me although a man many have an opinion on this, thats all he is entitled to have.

Why is equality such a problem for some women?

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

Although some may think two other parties may be involved - I would say the only other party involved is the man. And for me although a man many have an opinion on this, thats all he is entitled to have.

Which is why I consider your opinion to be little more than a feminist cliche. An offensive one at that.