Legalise abortion

sparkling sea · 29-04-2010 3:46pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

In short, even if you do not believe that the fetus should have rights, you are still justifying that a man should pay for the unilateral choice of another - be it to keep a child or not. And that pretty much erodes your moral high ground to nothing.

That is not my justification, it is the conclusion that you are jumping to - and its not the first time that you have jumped to the wrong conclusion, maybe you could ask before you jump, please. Everything isn't black or white, or one way or the other, life is full of complexities.

Rights have to be balanced and a woman is the one who ultimatly must decide whether or not she wishes to be pregnant for 9 months, only she knows whether or not she can deal with the vast amounts of changes that will happen to her, in a perfect world this would be done with the input of a man, they would reach the decision together and this is probably often the case.There are as many young men who want their girlfriends to have abortions as the other way round. It doesn't mean that a man can't really want a child or be devasted by the fact that a woman has an abortion BUT all people have a fundemental fight to autonomy when making decisions about there own body and mind. We are rational free people and we cannot impose our will on others in these circumstances - no amount of legislation,etc. will change that.

Also a man will not know a woman is pregnant unless she tells him - if sanctions are imposed on her, she just won't tell him. I don't think this will do much to foster steady and loving relationships either

There is no moral high ground, just opinion.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2010 3:53pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

That is not my justification, it is the conclusion that you are jumping to - and its not the first time that you have jumped to the wrong conclusion, maybe you could ask before you jump, please. Everything isn't black or white, or one way or the other, life is full of complexities.

Rights have to be balanced and a woman is the one who ultimatly must decide whether or not she wishes to be pregnant for 9 months, only she knows whether or not she can deal with the vast amounts of changes that will happen to her, in a perfect world this would be done with the input of a man, they would reach the decision together and this is probably often the case.There are as many young men who want their girlfriends to have abortions as the other way round. It doesn't mean that a man can't really want a child or be devasted by the fact that a woman has an abortion BUT all people have a fundemental fight to autonomy when making decisions about there own body and mind. We are rational free people and we cannot impose our will on others in these circumstances - no amount of legislation,etc. will change that.

Yet that balance seems to be skewed in favour of the woman either way - if she chooses to terminate, then she terminates and no one can or should stop her. If she chooses not to then the 'child' suddenly supersedes the rights of the man - but only if the woman wills it - conveniently forcing the man to contribute to the cost of her choice.

It may not be black and white, but if not you appear to be cherry picking the shades of gray that suit a woman's choice, either way. And that is a 'cake and eat it' mentality that is not based on balance but on self interest.

GarlicBread · 29-04-2010 3:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why don't you cite Saudi Arabia too, while you're at it - that's just as relevant to the society we live in as the historical past is.

Why? Is is a religious taboo to do so?

The last magdalane laundry closed in 1996, thats not the historical past.

Dont even bother with religious taboo please, the reason we are in this mess having this debate in the first place is because of religious taboo and its long string of catastrophic effects on the well being of irish women.

We are the only country in this section of the planet that still hasnt legalized abortion simply because we left ourselves wide open to the vatican and their twisted social values.

sparkling sea · 29-04-2010 4:06pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet that balance seems to be skewed in favour of the woman either way - if she chooses to terminate, then she terminates and no one can or should stop her. If she chooses not to then the 'child' suddenly supersedes the rights of the man - but only if the woman wills it - conveniently forcing the man to contribute to the cost of her choice.

It may not be black and white, but if not you appear to be cherry picking the shades of gray that suit a woman's choice, either way. And that is a 'cake and eat it' mentality that is not based on balance but on self interest.

A man cannot carry a child nor can he force a woman too. No one can impose their will on another with regard to bodily integrity.

You are not addressing the reality of the situation, and your arguments are a little be child like at this stage.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2010 4:22pm

GarlicBread wrote: »

The last magdalane laundry closed in 1996, thats not the historical past.

Actually it is. It is in the past and is only used now as some sort of justification for actions that affect people who were either too young to be responsible for or not even born when they were around, let alone in operation.

Dont even bother with religious taboo please, the reason we are in this mess having this debate in the first place is because of religious taboo and its long string of catastrophic effects on the well being of irish women.

My views are completely indifferent to religion, I was actually commenting upon the almost religious, and certainly ironic, zealotry with which you are foisting your views - "do not do battle with monsters, lest yea become a monster", comes to mind.

We are the only country in this section of the planet that still hasnt legalized abortion simply because we left ourselves wide open to the vatican and their twisted social values.

Actually that's not true. Looking at the EU, Malta is equally as restrictive and Poland's abortion laws have become incresingly so. This is before pointing out that it is illegal (for what it's worth) in most of Europe's micro-states.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, you have a far more restrictive policy to the rest of the UK, inspired by religious objections - Just not Catholic ones.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2010 4:32pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

A man cannot carry a child nor can he force a woman too. No one can impose their will on another with regard to bodily integrity.

I never suggested that. I pointed out that your logic tends to pick a balance that always favours the woman's choice. Even if it has nothing to do with a woman's bodily integrity (a woman choosing to keep a child) you then 'balance' things out so that the child has rights and the man not? Can he not elect, as a woman can, to 'abort' responsibility before those rights exist?

It simply seems that your moral logic is not one of balance, but of cherry picking those moral options that best suit a woman's choice, regardless of what it is.

You are not addressing the reality of the situation, and your arguments are a little be child like at this stage.

Please don't devolve to churlish comments - I am quite aware of the situation, I simply am challenging you biased view of how it is handled.

celticbest · 29-04-2010 4:41pm

I think we should just go all out an legalise Murder as well because at the end of the day what's the difference between somebody getting shot at age Twenty and an unborn baby being murdered in the womb?? As long as it's legal nobody can say anything.

I'm sure if you ask the Twenty year old if they want to be shot dead there answer would most likely be no, I'm sure if the unborn child could answer the same question you would also get the same answer.

In my opinion there's none......that's my opinion and people saying this or that in reply will not change it, I'm sure if somebody was in favour of abortion they too would not change there opinion because of a discussion like this???

GarlicBread · 29-04-2010 4:58pm

@Corinthian

Poland and malta are far away and have particularly bad infestations of catholicism just like us

.

I dont mean to sound like a zealot, but i feel strongly about this issue(as do many of us) and fire must be fought with fire when serious things are at stake.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2010 5:11pm

GarlicBread wrote: »

Poland and malta are far away and have particularly bad infestations of catholicism just like us .

I didn't realize you were being so narrow in your definition of "this section of the planet", I would have thought that the EU would count as "this section of the planet". Even so, abortion law in NI is not as a result of any Catholic infestation...

I dont mean to sound like a zealot, but i feel strongly about this issue(as do many of us) and fire must be fought with fire when serious things are at stake.

Religion aside, I think you'll find a lot of men are more open to listening (not necessarily agreeing, mind you) if you don't label it as a woman's issue. The double standards that I have been pointing out to Sparkling Sea have kind of drained our sympathy for womens' issues.

GarlicBread · 29-04-2010 5:40pm

@Corinthian

I wasnt talking about catholics in a negative manner, i was talking about catholocism/institutional church/vatican. Most of my family, friends and society at large are catholic but its not the populations fault since they had no control of the situation.

I do think men have a say yeah, but they have to be secondary. As sparkling sea pointed out, the unborn is inside the mother and has no other association what so ever with anyone or anything else. You cant write legislation for one person by going through another. She has total control of the situation and thats the crux of the arguement. If she so chooses the father to be involved, then so it be.

I allready knew about malta and poland thats why i said 'section' and not 'continent/eurozone'. I didnt wanna get caught out pandering to any nit picking precisionism

. You got me with NI tho, damn it.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2010 5:53pm

GarlicBread wrote: »

Most of my family, friends and society at large are catholic but its not the populations fault since they had no control of the situation.

Actually it is, as much of the abuses of the Church in Ireland were aided by a culture of silence, by the population, in Ireland - and I am old enough to know that to claim that this silence was down to 'fear' would be untrue too.

Whole other argument / can of worms, TBH.

You cant write legislation for one person by going through another. She has total control of the situation and thats the crux of the arguement. If she so chooses the father to be involved, then so it be.

No, but I did point out that in the event of a woman choosing to keep the child, the emphasis suddenly goes onto the child's rights - just in time to help pay the bills, so you have to really ask who's rights are really being served?

It's very difficult to respect someone's personal rights, when they cherry pick what rights they respect of others, if they respect them at all.

sparkling sea · 29-04-2010 7:23pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please don't devolve to churlish comments - I am quite aware of the situation, I simply am challenging you biased view of how it is handled.

The comments that are churlish are yours and your arguements far from challenging are based on nothing but your imagination, and the obvious chip you have on your shoulder.

Its fairly simple for a man not to be burdened with a child and for a woman not to have control over whether or not she has the final say over the birth of a child. Don't have sex - its that simple. Otherwise he doesn't carry a child so he will therefore be dependent on the agreement of another to carry and give birth to a baby. For you to even state that a person should have control over anothers bodily integrity is frankly sick and smacks of principles similiar to Nazism.

You say the system is biased in favour of mothers - in reality unemployed single mothers and their children are caught in a poverty trap. 86% of lone parents are women. Census 2006 recorded 189,213 lone parent families in Ireland: 18% of all families are now one-parent families.
17.8% of lone parents (the majority being women) were living in consistent poverty, compared to 4.2% of the population as a whole.
In 2007, 85,084 people were in receipt of One Parent Family Payment (OPFP) from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Of these, 58% were claiming for one child. Lone parents under 20 accounted for less than 2% of recipients. 98% of OPFP recipients were women. So its not silly teenagers but grown women and the children who are stuck in this trap.

Men have the right to choose so why shouldn't women - will they should.

60% of those receiving OPFP are in employment. Of these, most women work part-time, while most male lone parents work full-time. Lone parents often experience difficulty in accessing work, education and training opportunities because of a lack of good quality affordable childcare and after-school care. This means that job choices are often limited and low-paid.

So were are the fathers in these cases - they have availed of the Male Abortion principle.

miss_shadow · 29-04-2010 10:04pm

SLUSK wrote: »

Did you ever read Freakonomics? In this book they make a very good case that the reduction in crime was due to legalisation of abortion. People with stable relationships in middle class or wealthier classes usually have planned pregnancies and these children are likelier to be well taken care of than the welfare mum who already has 2 kids by the age of 20 with 2 different dads. I'm not advocating eugenics people, just legalizing abortion. You know it is legal in civilized countries.

it's actually the wealthier middle class women who have abortions.
you're comment sounds a bit naive to me.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2010 10:13pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

The comments that are churlish are yours and your arguements far from challenging are based on nothing but your imagination, and the obvious chip you have on your shoulder.

More ad hominem attacks - nice.

Its fairly simple for a man not to be burdened with a child and for a woman not to have control over whether or not she has the final say over the birth of a child. Don't have sex - its that simple.

That is incredibly offensive. So women can be as sexually irresponsible as they like because they have a 'right to choose' and men are effectively told that they should not put out if they don't want to get in trouble. The irony of your approach to sexual equality is hilarious.

For you to even state that a person should have control over anothers bodily integrity is frankly sick and smacks of principles similiar to Nazism.

Where did I do that? I specifically raised the scenario of male abortion to avoid that.

Men have the right to choose so why shouldn't women - will they should.

Men have no legal right to choose. Where did you get that from?

So were are the fathers in these cases - they have availed of the Male Abortion principle.

Only through avoidance and the constant threat of legal action. Women one the other hand can legally make a clean break.

And it is this cherry picking of rights, to suit only one of the stakeholders in these situations that is the reason I reject your argument. It is partisan.

sparkling sea · 29-04-2010 11:29pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only through avoidance and the constant threat of legal action. Women one the other hand can legally make a clean break.

And it is this cherry picking of rights, to suit only one of the stakeholders in these situations that is the reason I reject your argument. It is partisan.

Back your conjecture with facts and/ or stats - not your imaginary
veiw.

The Corinthian · 30-04-2010 8:26am

sparkling sea wrote: »

Back your conjecture with facts and/ or stats - not your imaginary
veiw.

Sorry, but you claimed that somehow "men have the right to choose" and I pointed out how legally, this is not the case - if you want to correct me, please do. Indeed, if you disagree with anything I have said about the legal rights and obligations of both men and women in pregnancy, I would love to be corrected.

Spewing out statistics on how hard life is for single mothers is irrelevant to the issue of rights, which is what we are discussing, BTW. Just because something is factual, does not make it relevant.

Ultimately, however, the point of this line of argument was principally to demonstrate that your position on abortion is founded on a Gynocentric agenda, as opposed to your earlier claim of seeking 'balance' - abortion may be moral (or at least not immoral), but is certainly is not simply because it is "a woman's right to choose".

Wibbs · 30-04-2010 9:56am

sparkling sea wrote: »

Many fathers in Ireland abort their rights and obligations - I don't I agree with it because I think once a child is a person in its own right it needs both parents.If a person chooses to have a baby they need to remember it is not a "thing" its a person - its needs, in my opinion must come first - children need both their parents. I dont agree that a woman has the right to stop a father seeing a child either

Having read through this thread, more and more I have to say I agree with the corinthian's view. It is cake and eat it feminism. The woman makes all the decisions in this process. It needs two people to get pregnant and in an ideal world two people to raise same, but the decision to get to that point is the woman's. She decides to abort or not. Her decision impacts on the man.

If he wants to continue the pregnancy and she doesnt, tough. If he wants to terminate the pregnancy, tough. If for whatever reason he doesnt agree with termination or simply feels that's not his choice, but doesnt want the resulting child, tough again. If it comes to adopting the child to another family, again his choices are few.

Of course his financial and emotional responsibilities in this are not few and last a long time. All predicated on the decision of the woman. That is simply not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

Now if we take the argument that this inequality is based on biology, that its the woman's body and her choice, then why do we seek to right that biological inequality in other areas such as employment? If I hire a woman of reproductive age and she wants to start a family while in my employ, that costs me as an employer when compared to hiring a man of reproductive age. No if's buts or maybes. Yet to suggest employers should be allowed be biased* in this would cause a shítstorm.

If women have the right to a termination or not in law, then the man involved should have the right to input into this decision and the right to opt in or out in law too.

*Though many do so already. I've even known two women in HR depts that have this bias.

celticbest · 30-04-2010 10:44am

Can anybody please explain how aboration is not murder after reading link article below..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7652889/Baby-that-survived-botched-abortion-was-rejected-for-cleft-lip-and-palate.html

This case is now being investigated as homicide(Murder).

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 11:04am

celticbest wrote: »

Can anybody please explain how aboration is not murder after reading link article below..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7652889/Baby-that-survived-botched-abortion-was-rejected-for-cleft-lip-and-palate.html

This case is now being investigated as homicide(Murder).

There's more. The abortion was allowed because a scan shown the baby was disabled.

The disability? a cleft lip and palate.

Go figure.

cynder · 30-04-2010 11:13am

I really hope the mother feels the pain of this poor baby.

Believe me i feel like saying a lot worse but im sure peole will jump down my throat.

Who would want a mother who didnt want you because you had a a cleft lip and palate. Thw woamn needs to grow up and live in the real world.

The Corinthian · 30-04-2010 11:36am

StealthRolex wrote: »

There's more. The abortion was allowed because a scan shown the baby was disabled.

Well, outside of tugging at the heart strings, I'm not sure how relevant the reason is. Either the fetus has a right to life or it does not.

I do think though that as medical science advances, you will find more and more cases whereby either botched abortions, or more likely premature births will result in younger and younger fetuses surviving independent of the mother. As a result it is likely to repeatedly reopen the debate on the status of the fetus - whether it is human or not - and slowly push back the time during which an abortion is permissible.

Eventually, we will develop an artificial uterus, and that is when the s**t will really hit the fan.

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 1:35pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, outside of tugging at the heart strings, I'm not sure how relevant the reason is. Either the fetus has a right to life or it does not.

I do think though that as medical science advances, you will find more and more cases whereby either botched abortions, or more likely premature births will result in younger and younger fetuses surviving independent of the mother. As a result it is likely to repeatedly reopen the debate on the status of the fetus - whether it is human or not - and slowly push back the time during which an abortion is permissible.

Eventually, we will develop an artificial uterus, and that is when the s**t will really hit the fan.

Granted. Medical science has advanced to the point where it is accepted as fact that it is a unique human and that human life starts at conception yet we still get arguments that "in my opinion is not human or not human yet".

The arguments over abortion rights are really arguments over which humans have a right to life and in what circumstances.

Either all humans have a right to life or none have. If we are going to make for special cases or age where does it stop?

How may pro-choice people out there look at Downs people or spina bifida victims and think "that should have been aborted".
How many Indians or Chinese with no boys in their families look at girls and say "that should have been aborted".

How long will be be before ginger hair is consider grounds for abortion as sex already is in India and China.

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 1:38pm

grindelwald wrote: »

I really hope the mother feels the pain of this poor baby.

Believe me i feel like saying a lot worse but im sure peole will jump down my throat.

Who would want a mother who didnt want you because you had a a cleft lip and palate. Thw woamn needs to grow up and live in the real world.

I would suggest that as that woman had an abortion in a "Catholic" country she should have had a "Catholic abortion" and had her entire uterus removed :eek:

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 2:15pm

SLUSK wrote: »

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring prostitution down because potential prostitutes will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more prostitution , 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.

Hope you didn't mind SLUSK and borrowed the idea from jhegarty.

In my opinion the only reason to legalize abortion is so that women can be legally treated as animated sex objects to be used by men for pleasure and pleasure alone. I leave it up to them whether or not they choose to charge for their time.

If one can objectify the contents of the womb and make them disposable then surely the wrapper is just that and equally disposable.

The Corinthian · 30-04-2010 2:22pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Granted. Medical science has advanced to the point where it is accepted as fact that it is a unique human and that human life starts at conception yet we still get arguments that "in my opinion is not human or not human yet".

I think the pro-choice side of the argument has made a long term tactical error in pinning their argument on the 'humanity' debate. Having said this, the pro-life side is too dependent on this too, assuming that once human a fetus suddenly is home free - its not.

However, the 'humanity' debate remains important politically as, all reason and logic aside, it is easier to sell the image of a baby than a ball of cells to the public.

Either all humans have a right to life or none have.

I'm afraid that the right to life has never been so black and white.

There are numerous areas where a human either has lost the right to life, or their right to life is subservient to another right or principle. Of the more contentious, capital punishment and war are two, however other examples that are commonly accepted include death due to self-defense or triage (where to save the life of on patient, the other must die). Indeed, there are very few who would oppose abortion when it is necessary as part of medical treatment for the mother or because pregnancy presents a clear danger to her.

And that is just the West, today. Historically (and presently in some parts of the World) the right of life is revoked for numerous other reasons, ranging from heresy through to eugenics.

Additionally, there are plenty of other areas where the right to life is not absolute. An example, which I have repeatedly raised, and which is relevant to abortion, is with organ transplants. If your sibling is the only available doner for a kidney or lung for you, without which you will die, there is no law or moral code in existence that will force them to donate against their will - their right to bodily integrity trumps your right to life.

So it is not black and white, I'm afraid - even if the fetus is recognized as human.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would suggest that as that woman had an abortion in a "Catholic" country she should have had a "Catholic abortion" and had her entire uterus removed :eek:

That is actually quite an offensive and emotive comment, unbecoming of this forum, IMHO.

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 2:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid that the right to life has never been so black and white.

So it is not black and white, I'm afraid - even if the fetus is recognized as human.

I admire your eloquence however the fact remains that the grey areas, in particular triage issues, are frequently presented as reasons for allowing abortion to be legalized so that abortion is essentially available on demand up to certain "acceptable" time limits.

The grey area then becomes the black and white issue to legalized it or not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is actually quite an offensive and emotive comment, unbecoming of this forum, IMHO.

IYO but IMO for many people abortion itself is offensive and emotive.

How many mothers have said to their children "you know if abortion was available when I was pregnant with you I would have had an abortion"

The Corinthian · 30-04-2010 2:49pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

I admire your eloquence however the fact remains that the grey areas, in particular triage issues, are frequently presented as reasons for allowing abortion to be legalized so that abortion is essentially available on demand up to certain "acceptable" time limits.

To begin with you have ignored the numerous other examples that demonstrate that a right to life is not black and white.

But more curiously, are you suggesting then that all triage issues are false? If not, then you cannot use abuses as a justification for applying a black and white code of conduct.

And if so, and you deny that there are any cases where a mother can be medically in significant medical risk, if not mortal danger, then I think you would be at odds with pretty much 99.9% of the medical profession.

IYO but IMO for many people abortion itself is offensive and emotive.

Irrelevant. This is the 'Humanities' forum and is meant for rational and reasoned debate. If I wanted to read a posts screaming "won't someone think of the children" I would be reading the diatribe commonly found on 'After Hours'.

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 3:04pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with you have ignored the numerous other examples that demonstrate that a right to life is not black and white.

But more curiously, are you suggesting then that all triage issues are false? If not, then you cannot use abuses as a justification for applying a black and white code of conduct.

And if so, and you deny that there are any cases where a mother can be medically in significant medical risk, if not mortal danger, then I think you would be at odds with pretty much 99.9% of the medical profession.

The examples I "ignored" were because they are not related to the issue in hand. Yes they serve as examples if you are telling me you consider abortion to be self defense of an act of war or the child has committed a crime requiring capital punishment. These are situations where those involved have been born, grown up and can speak for and defend themselves.
They are only ever useful if you want to say that because we can forfeit life in some situations it is ok to legitimize abortion.

There are some areas where we prefer it if when we do have a black and white choice. Are you of the opinion that the "women and children first" call when getting on a lifeboat should be abandoned in certain circumstances? Say for example when there are not enough boats for everyone is it ok for the men to get in first?

99.999% of abortions are carried out on healthy pregnancies. The pro-choice side is not interested in medical care or treatment. They are only interested in getting abortion legalized for non-medical threats or for medical threats that can be falsified to provide the equivalent of abortion on demand.
The example from Italy is a case in point - cleft palate is not a disability and can be corrected with surgery. However the law regarding disability was used.

I do not deny that life threatening complications can arise in pregnancy. Complication cases have been presented and "discussed" and as yet no-one can present a case where the one and only solution is to kill the child first and do nothing else. In complication cases the mother is always treated as the primary patient and frequently the mother wants to continue with the pregnancy as far as she can.
Where they are used as a reason for legalized abortion they are presented as hard cases and used to make bad laws.

I've done the literature searches and I cannot find any cases were abortion was the only solution.
If you can find some I would gladly discuss as long as no one starts chucking "catholic doctrine" as pejorative into the equation or making up their own medical ethics as they see fit.

sparkling sea · 30-04-2010 7:55pm

Wibbs wrote: »

If women have the right to a termination or not in law, then the man involved should have the right to input into this decision and the right to opt in or out in law too. *Though many do so already. I've even known two women in HR depts that have this bias.

And many take up this right.

sparkling sea · 30-04-2010 8:01pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant. This is the 'Humanities' forum and is meant for rational and reasoned debate. If I wanted to read a posts screaming "won't someone think of the children" I would be reading the diatribe commonly found on 'After Hours'.

Hahaha - rational and reasoned and a debate.

Wibbs · 30-04-2010 8:12pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

And many take up this right.

Many of whom? Men? When can a man interfere with a woman's right to an abortion in law(in jurisdictions where its on the books)and bring a case in law to prevent her from having one or not having one? Where can a man legally disown any child he does not want and walk away from a responsibility he did not want? Where can a man block an adoption? A man has few rights in this scenario. A man has much less control over his reproductive choices, beyond contraception. If that fails as these things can, then at that point he has no rights to speak off, except to be chased through the court for maintenance if the woman wants to go that route.

Indeed on the maintenance side; if hypothetically a mother abandons her child and the father takes over the primary care and gives up work to do so, can a man chase the woman for maintenance in the courts? Genuine question BTW. I always wondered what recourse is there in that situation.

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 9:02pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid that the right to life has never been so black and white.

Actually it is very black and white. The UN as well as our Constitution says so.

Article 3. (UNDHR)

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The only time it could be argued that a right to life is being impinged is when the double-effect is invoked.

That has already been disparaged here by at least one poster and misrepresented by another.

The double-effect is used every day in all walks of life and not just in medical situations - Test pilots, doctors treating contagious patients, police or gardai apprehending armed criminals. Their right to life is not modified by their choice to take a risk with it.
The military use double-effect frequently. This still does not dilute the right to life of those killed.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (UN)

It doesn't say anything about their age, sex, mental or physical health, or their socio-economic status.

It appears to be a black and white statement.

The Corinthian · 01-05-2010 1:44pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

And many take up this right.

Who? Men? If this is what you mean you have obviously ignored where more than one poster has pointed out that such a right does not legally exist for men. Don't let the facts get in the way of a prejudice though.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Hahaha - rational and reasoned and a debate.

And I was supposedly being churlish?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The double-effect is used every day in all walks of life and not just in medical situations - Test pilots, doctors treating contagious patients, police or gardai apprehending armed criminals. Their right to life is not modified by their choice to take a risk with it.
The military use double-effect frequently. This still does not dilute the right to life of those killed.

The justification of taking another life in law or morality sounds a lot like the dilution of the right to life to me.

With respects, I am uninterested in a discussion on semantics - I wasted enough time with Nozz on that. However, you cannot deny that justifiable homicide takes place in a large number of scenarios, and that is the bottom line, however you would prefer to label it.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (UN)

I really don't understand why people keep on quoting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as if it in some way a legal document. It's not.

The Corinthian · 01-05-2010 1:54pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed on the maintenance side; if hypothetically a mother abandons her child and the father takes over the primary care and gives up work to do so, can a man chase the woman for maintenance in the courts? Genuine question BTW. I always wondered what recourse is there in that situation.

I would imagine you would have great difficulty finding such cases. If a woman does not want to become a parent she will tend to have an abortion - this is one of the reasons that the number of children being given up for adoption in the West is so low.

Even in the adoption scenario, the mother does not require the consent of the father to put the child up for adoption, only that she has made a reasonable effort to consult him - which of course means he need not even be informed. Once put up for adoption, the mother is absolved of all parental responsibilities.

So 'deadbeat moms' are rare, largely because they never get to term in the first place.

I think we're in danger of going seriously OT though.

StealthRolex · 01-05-2010 3:32pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really don't understand why people keep on quoting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as if it in some way a legal document. It's not.

If it isn't you will have to substantiate that statement.

Legal or not - and as I understand it, it is legal in this country since 2003, it does support my position that the right to life is a black and white issue.

The Corinthian · 01-05-2010 4:14pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

If it isn't you will have to substantiate that statement.

It is a declaration - a wish list, if you will - and it's position in international law is tenuous, if it exists at all. I just keep on seeing people quote UN declarations in debates, as if they actually mean anything in the real World.

Legal or not - and as I understand it, it is legal in this country since 2003, it does support my position that the right to life is a black and white issue.

Whatever - all this is completely irrelevant to my argument. The UN Declaration of Human Rights does not change the fact that the right to life is superseded in many circumstances - now you can start playing with terms and call it double-effect or whatever, but in the end someone got killed and it was acceptable in the eyes of society.

Tell me, where do you stand on my earlier organ doner scenario - is it moral to force someone to donate an organ (such as a lung or kidney) to protect the right to life of another?

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 2:36am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Tell me, where do you stand on my earlier organ doner scenario - is it moral to force someone to donate an organ (such as a lung or kidney) to protect the right to life of another?

Morally you cannot force a person to donate against their will.
Therefore the morality of the decision rests with the person who can choose to provide the organ. However in the examples you give the donation will not cause the death of the donor.
In abortion one person is deciding for another and as it involves the death of one who has no choice your example is not equitable.

If you want to argue equal rights with another poster it would be good manners to use examples where the rights are equitable in all posts.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 2:39am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whatever - all this is completely irrelevant to my argument. The UN Declaration of Human Rights does not change the fact that the right to life is superseded in many circumstances - now you can start playing with terms and call it double-effect or whatever, but in the end someone got killed and it was acceptable in the eyes of society.

In the examples you provided, as well as mine to counter, the individuals involved had decided for themselves that they were taking risks. Their right to life was never invalidated.
A test pilot has a right to life. The test vehicle may crash but that is nothing to do with their right to life.
A police officer has a right to life and may be fatally injured in the line of duty but their right to life was never invalidated. Likewise a soldier.
A doctor has a right to life and may risk catching a contagious and possibly fatal disease when treating others but his or her right to life was never invalidated.
A senior military officer may decide that collateral damage is acceptable for the greater good. Even so the victims of any action still have a right to life.
A donor may decide that their bodily integrity supersedes the needs of a patient and if that decision denies the patient a life the donor has to live with that decision. In any case the right to life if a patient requiring a donor organ has nothing to do with the availability of donor organs. The right to life of a patient requiring an organ protects them from being killed deliberately, not accidentally.

But back to the topic - Is society willing to accept the killing of defenceless innocent humans?

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 2:48am

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is a declaration - a wish list, if you will - and it's position in international law is tenuous, if it exists at all. I just keep on seeing people quote UN declarations in debates, as if they actually mean anything in the real World.

As I understand it since we ratified the Lisbon treaty it is law.

Everyone has a right to life.

Granted when it comes to abortion the UN has decided to abdicated that to the sovereign governments and in Irish law everyone has a right to life.
While the double effect is not explicit in our constitution it is implied by due regard to the equal right to life of the mother.

GarlicBread · 02-05-2010 3:19am

"But back to the topic - Is society willing to accept the killing of defenceless innocent humans?"

I think the point is that many people dont consider it human life. For humans to be brought into this world you first need a willing female. If you dont have that, you dont have any basis to bring unwanted people into existence.

I wish pro-lifers would cop on to the fact that its perverse and weird to try and have a say about the reproductive systems of private people. Go police your own and keep away from the rest of us.

Forcing somone to be pregnant is a horrendus crime in its own right.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 3:21am

celticbest wrote: »

Can anybody please explain how aboration is not murder after reading link article below..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7652889/Baby-that-survived-botched-abortion-was-rejected-for-cleft-lip-and-palate.html

This case is now being investigated as homicide(Murder).

No-one can argue it is not murder. The purpose of the exercise of legalised abortion is to allow in law justifiable homicide for certain individuals.

If a cleft palate is a legal reason for an abortion why is loosing your arms in an industrial accident not also a reason to kill armless victims.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 3:25am

GarlicBread wrote: »

"But back to the topic - Is society willing to accept the killing of defenceless innocent humans?"

I think the point is that many people dont consider it human life.

That is indeed the point but those that do not consider it a human life cannot prove that it is not a human life.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 3:31am

GarlicBread wrote: »

For humans to be brought into this world you first need a willing female. If you dont have that, you dont have any basis to bring unwanted people into existence.

Actually you need both a female and a willing male if you want to create another human and you will probably find that this third human had no choice in the matter and has no concept of whether they were wanted or not.

GarlicBread · 02-05-2010 3:36am

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is indeed the point but those that do not consider it a human life cannot prove that it is not a human life.

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

You cant go trying to have a say about some strangers vagina. If some stranger approached me with an opinion about how my genitals may or may not function, id beat him to death then and there for being a freak.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 3:44am

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

You cant go trying to have a say about some strangers vagina. If some stranger approached me with an opinion about how my genitals may or may not function, id beat him to death then and there for being a freak.

First of all it is not you or I who say it is human or not. Medical science has already decided that it is human.

Secondly we are not talking about some strangers vagina we are talking about a human life that through circumstances of biology happens to be living in a womans uterus.

If you want to go around beating up medical professionals that is your business but I caution you that it is against the law.

GarlicBread · 02-05-2010 4:02am

StealthRolex wrote: »

First of all it is not you or I who say it is human or not. Medical science has already decided that it is human.

Secondly we are not talking about some strangers vagina we are talking about a human life that through circumstances of biology happens to be living in a womans uterus.

If you want to go around beating up medical professionals that is your business but I caution you that it is against the law.

I was a bit harsh with the last statement, but i stand by it. People have the right to decency and privacy particularly when it their own bodies.

Heres a quote from the linked story -

"Since 1978, abortion has been available on demand in Italy in the first three months of pregnancy but is restricted to specific circumstances - such as disability"

Catholic Italy has had legal abortion on demand since 1978 and we are still here in 2010 exporting our abortions to every country around us. Regardless of your views on the right to life, its a disgraceful situation we have festering here in this country.

Do you think its ok to pretend that we are so morally better than everyone else and then send our abortions abroad because we are to ignorant to do it for ourselves?

Irish women have just as much abortions as any other women. We need to grow up fast and legalize it.

The Corinthian · 02-05-2010 9:44am

StealthRolex wrote: »

Morally you cannot force a person to donate against their will.
Therefore the morality of the decision rests with the person who can choose to provide the organ. However in the examples you give the donation will not cause the death of the donor.
In abortion one person is deciding for another and as it involves the death of one who has no choice your example is not equitable.

Well, strictly speaking that is not true. Some abortion procedures will cause the death of the fetus, but others simply 'evict' it, after which it dies because it is outside of an environment that can support it.

Of course the doner scenario is not exactly the same as abortion - there are a number of differences - so I am not saying that it justifies abortion morally.

If you want to argue equal rights with another poster it would be good manners to use examples where the rights are equitable in all posts.

Good manners? Please, get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

I have put forward an argument, you have disagreed and I have rebutted your rejection. It is part of a debate.

StealthRolex wrote: »

In the examples you provided, as well as mine to counter, the individuals involved had decided for themselves that they were taking risks. Their right to life was never invalidated.

That too is incorrect. Manslaughter, while still a crime, is not treated in the same way as murder. Neither is death by misadventure or self-defense. Civilian casualties in war are regrettable, but if not specifically targeted are not considered a war crime. Did they choose to take a risk?

Why do you insist on claiming that the right to life is a black and white concept, when it is blatantly obvious that society does not and never has seen it in such terms?

In any case the right to life if a patient requiring a donor organ has nothing to do with the availability of donor organs. The right to life of a patient requiring an organ protects them from being killed deliberately, not accidentally.

So you cannot commit murder through inaction? I think you will find the law will disagree with you on that one.

The Corinthian · 02-05-2010 9:58am

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

Seriously, that is some seriously gynocentric misandry there...

First of all you are suggesting that an individual decides if something/one is a human being or not, outside of law or morality. By that logic one woman may decide that a zygote is human and another choose to snap the child's neck as it is coming out at nine months - which is an untenable position; individuals do not have the right to subjectively decide who is human or not.

Secondly, you practically ignore even the possibility that there is any pain or mourning involved from anyone other than the woman - it's tagged on as an "except maybe" afterthought. It's frankly offensive.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Catholic Italy has had legal abortion on demand since 1978 and we are still here in 2010 exporting our abortions to every country around us.

Catholic Italy is not all that Catholic; the relationship between Church and State or people is historically a complex one, full of contradictions and hypocrisies - "vizi privati, pubbliche virtù" - so the comparison is poor.

Do you think its ok to pretend that we are so morally better than everyone else and then send our abortions abroad because we are to ignorant to do it for ourselves?

Well this is not so much something to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, but with a classic Irish solution to an Irish problem. Regardless of whether one is is pro-Life or Choice, we are in a bizarre legal situation whereby we consider something a crime, yet allow it's facilitation (protecting travel and information) abroad. It's like having a law against child sex abuse, but openly allow tour operators to advertise and organize holidays to Indochina for this purpose.

Ireland is full of such 'solutions' - the oldest of which is our 'neutrality', which is not really all that neutral.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 11:34am

GarlicBread wrote: »

Heres a quote from the linked story -

"Since 1978, abortion has been available on demand in Italy in the first three months of pregnancy but is restricted to specific circumstances - such as disability"

Catholic Italy has had legal abortion on demand since 1978 and we are still here in 2010 exporting our abortions to every country around us. Regardless of your views on the right to life, its a disgraceful situation we have festering here in this country.

Do you think its ok to pretend that we are so morally better than everyone else and then send our abortions abroad because we are to ignorant to do it for ourselves?

It was a lack of ignorance that saw us bring in our Constitutional protection for all life. It was ignorance that saw that law watered down when hard cases were presented.

In my opinion it would be better if the other countries saw fit to make abortion illegal in their jurisdictions and educate their people in to the realities of human reproduction and how to lead responsible sex lives.

The reality is that abortion, where it is legal, is legal for reasons of eugenics and to deal with contraceptive failure or failure to use contraceptives.

If women don't want to get pregnant they should not expose themselves to that risk. If they do wish to take that risk they should be prepared to deal with the consequences without resorting to murder.

drkpower · 02-05-2010 11:57am

StealthRolex wrote: »

It was a lack of ignorance that saw us bring in our Constitutional protection for all life. It was ignorance that saw that law watered down when hard cases were presented.

Ignorance or not, it was bad judgment that saw us bring in Article 40.3.3. Seeking to regulate such a complex area by way of a one-liner in the Constitution was always dooomed to failure.

Of course there were (genuine) concerns at the time that a general right to privacy would allow a court to bring in abortion 'by the back door' (as happened in the US/other jurisdictions). But the appropriate way to deal with that would have been to await such a development and react appropriately if it happened. Given that medical professions were then (and still are) essentially prevented from actuallly performing abortion ('on demand'), there was no real risk that abortion would have been introduced here so rapidly that the Government and the people had a chance to respond appropriately.

But the 'pro-life' movement chose to invent, or at least grossly exaggerate, this fear, to flex its muscles and to pressure a Government to act to insert a piece of constitutional language which has led to a pretty unsatisfactory stae of affairs. Until the medical profession changes its ethical rules, its all a little academic anyway.

Legalise abortion

Comments