If There Was A Referendum on Abortion Tomorrow, How Would You Vote?

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know when this line of argument has been used to discriminate. It was valid reasoning. We are trying to classify what should constitute as 'murder' in essence. I was suggesting that based on your criteria before your last post (you've since elaborated), killing bacteria would come under the blanket of creatures that we 'murder' rather than 'kill'.

Of course it has been. Time and time again. Jews weren't considered to be human, they were inferior. Black people weren't considered to be human, they were inferior. In both cases, their rights were taken away from them by this mere virtue.

In this case, the unborn are deemed to be inferior, and not worthy of the same respect and rights that all other human beings receive gladly.

Deleted User wrote: »

We've been here before so I think I may stop arguing after this post since it doesn't appear we will agree.
This is the synopsis of our argument:
Where you and I differ is that you consider the foetus to have the same rights as a human because you consider it to be a human, being born of the fusion of two human gametes.
I disagree and argue that the criteria for distinguishing between what is 'murder' and what isn't shouldn't be on whether that was born of the human race, but a mixture of humanity and cognition.
My stance on that point won't change, as yours won't.

Is the point of discussing, to cause the other to agree of necessity?

I consider the foetus to have the same rights as the rest of us, as it is a human life. It is undoubtably alive. By virtue of its being alive, and being one of us, it's rights are due equal respect.

This is an argument that has been made for numerous differing demographical groups in the past.

The criteria for what? Human life? - I find this lacking, because I find it difficult to see how life is really that difficult to determine. Is it a case of differing criteria, or is it the case that the waters are being severely muddied in order to argue for injustice?

I believe the latter is the case.

In that case, it is clear that Jews and everybody else were human.

Obviously a foetus is born of a human but I believe it falls outside of the usual boundaries of human rights by virtue of not yet having developed cognition.

I didn't say 'life' was so difficult to determine. As I have already stated, we kill many living things. It is what life should be protected that is difficult to determine.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

In that case, it is clear that Jews and everybody else were human.

Clear to us now. Certainly not clear in the philosophy that people in the past managed to put on them. It is the philosophy that we put on life that will be a testament to its importance to us. I feel it is too important to cheapen this, as we will end up cheapening everything. It is the philosophy that we put on the unborn that will give the prevailing attitude to life in our society. We can either make the right or the wrong decision.

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously a foetus is born of a human but I believe it falls outside of the usual boundaries of human rights by virtue of not yet having developed cognition.

I've explained why placing the criteria on cognition is fallacious. Indeed, it is nothing more than a personal philosophy. Personal philosophies can be used to deny anyone their rights. If I say that the criteria for a being that should have their rights endowed on them, is a skilled pianist, that is still merely a personal philosophy, and in any reasonable society that would not be enough to deny someone their human rights.

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say 'life' was so difficult to determine. As I have already stated, we kill many living things. It is what life should be protected that is difficult to determine.

I've also explained that humans distinguish human life from animal life on a daily basis. If we gave animals full rights, they would also have due responsibilities that could land them in court for doing things that they would not have the understanding to prevent themselves from doing. Indeed, it is unworkable not to distinguish between animals and humans, and we both know this.

Lollipops23

Jakkass wrote: »

Ah come off it. The issue is about tolerating the denial of human rights, not about it being okay for you, and not okay for me.

You know that surely?



Many of us don't consider it "civilised" to deny others the right to live. That's why we take the pro-life position. In a sense, I believe this is a way in which we in the West have failed to protect liberty, the liberty we so commonly boast about.

Oh stop being so self righteous.

You think it's not a breach of human rights to force someone into a pregnancy against their will?Or perhaps in spite of it endangerin their health. I don't approve of people abusing terminations,but I'm certainly going to pick the life/well-being of the mother over the embryo (it's not a child in my mind until it can survive outside the womb,ie approx 5 months.)

philologos

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Oh stop being so self righteous.

There isn't anything self-righteous about my position. I'm no better than anyone on any side of this argument. I just believe that peoples rights should be advocated.

I do find it ill-informed to tell people who disagree just not to have one. That isn't the point!

Lollipops23 wrote: »

You think it's not a breach of human rights to force someone into a pregnancy against their will?Or perhaps in spite of it endangerin their health. I don't approve of people abusing terminations,but I'm certainly going to pick the life/well-being of the mother over the embryo (it's not a child in my mind until it can survive outside the womb,ie approx 5 months.)

I think it's a breach of human rights to take another's life, yes.

Your view ignores the rights of the unborn. Mine considers both those of the unborn and of the mother as far as is possible, meaning that compromises will have to be made. Putting another person to death isn't a compromise.

Ensuring that the mother has adequate access to adoption services, and support along the way from the State is the best compromise that can be made. The mother won't have to keep the child in the long run, and the child is allowed to live.

I don't pick the rights of anyone, over anyone else. I just think that killing isn't an option in dealing with a conflict of rights.

Hazlittle

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I would vote for legalisation of abortion without a shadow of a doubt-I do accept that not everyone agrees with it but the answer is simple-don't have one.

It's time Ireland caught up with the rest of the civilised world IMHO.

Civilised like the UK? With their undemocratically elected head of state? Class system? Constantly attempting ethnic cleansing because they other peoples lives to be inferior?

Nah. I'll maintain my four thousand year old value system.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know when this line of argument has been used to discriminate. It was valid reasoning. We are trying to classify what should constitute as 'murder' in essence. I was suggesting that based on your criteria before your last post (you've since elaborated), killing bacteria would come under the blanket of creatures that we 'murder' rather than 'kill'.


We've been here before so I think I may stop arguing after this post since it doesn't appear we will agree.
This is the synopsis of our argument:
Where you and I differ is that you consider the foetus to have the same rights as a human because you consider it to be a human, being born of the fusion of two human gametes.
I disagree and argue that the criteria for distinguishing between what is 'murder' and what isn't shouldn't be on whether that was born of the human race, but a mixture of humanity and cognition.
My stance on that point won't change, as yours won't.

His argument is basis on ration deduction, wereas yours is based on a personal ideology. I'm not a fan of laws being based on other peoples ideology.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it has been. Time and time again. Jews weren't considered to be human, they were inferior. Black people weren't considered to be human, they were inferior. In both cases, their rights were taken away from them by this mere virtue.

In this case, the unborn are deemed to be inferior, and not worthy of the same respect and rights that all other human beings receive gladly.



Is the point of discussing, to cause the other to agree of necessity?

I consider the foetus to have the same rights as the rest of us, as it is a human life. It is undoubtably alive. By virtue of its being alive, and being one of us, it's rights are due equal respect.

This is an argument that has been made for numerous differing demographical groups in the past.

The criteria for what? Human life? - I find this lacking, because I find it difficult to see how life is really that difficult to determine. Is it a case of differing criteria, or is it the case that the waters are being severely muddied in order to argue for injustice?

I believe the latter is the case.

Deleted User wrote: »

In that case, it is clear that Jews and everybody else were human.

Obviously a foetus is born of a human but I believe it falls outside of the usual boundaries of human rights by virtue of not yet having developed cognition.

I didn't say 'life' was so difficult to determine. As I have already stated, we kill many living things. It is what life should be protected that is difficult to determine.

Irish people were considered to lack cognition.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Oh stop being so self righteous.

You think it's not a breach of human rights to force someone into a pregnancy against their will?Or perhaps in spite of it endangerin their health. I don't approve of people abusing terminations,but I'm certainly going to pick the life/well-being of the mother over the embryo (it's not a child in my mind until it can survive outside the womb,ie approx 5 months.)

99% they choose to get pregnant.

Lollipops23

Hazlittle wrote: »

Civilised like the UK? With their undemocratically elected head of state? Class system? Constantly attempting ethnic cleansing because they other peoples lives to be inferior?

Wow,off topic.

Hazlittle wrote: »

99% they choose to get pregnant.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry?99% of women who get terminations choose to become pregnant?Please clarify,because that sounds utterly stupid and false.

starbelgrade

How do you equate this opinion...

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't anything self-righteous about my position. I'm no better than anyone on any side of this argument. I just believe that peoples rights should be advocated.

I do find it ill-informed to tell people who disagree just not to have one. That isn't the point!

With this one, in your previous post...

Jakkass wrote: »

We can either make the right or the wrong decision.

Surely, if this isn't a black & white issue, if people are indeed entitled to their opinions & if the opinions are as they are - clearly didvided, there can be no such thing as the "right or wrong decision".

And surely this, beyond anything else, is the absolute crux of the matter.

The only difference that remains however, is that some people would like to see their views imposed over other people's rights to choose what they can or cannot do.

mrgardener

Hazlittle wrote: »

99% they choose to get pregnant.

Up until this post, the debate was interesting with well educated and informed comments. Please post the link to this wonderful fact please.
FYI, I'm pro abortion.

Indeed.
Even if you argue that abortion is imoral, you can't force your own moral beliefs on the mother.

DazMarz

I'd vote yes just to piss off the Catholic Church, tbh.

philologos

starbelgrade wrote: »

How do you equate this opinion...

With this one, in your previous post...

Sure. Let me deal with that. There is a difference between personal righteousness (I.E - How I live as a human being), and what society stands for. I will call that societal righteousness.

As an individual, I am not saying that I am personally more righteous than any other individual. Indeed, I don't believe that any human being can be truly said to be righteous, but that's not a discussion I'll get into for obvious reasons (It's very much off topic).

starbelgrade wrote: »

Surely, if this isn't a black & white issue, if people are indeed entitled to their opinions & if the opinions are as they are - clearly didvided, there can be no such thing as the "right or wrong decision".

I believe in universal morality, not relative morality. This informs my opinion about the existence of right and wrong. I also don't believe that right and wrong are dependant on opinion.

starbelgrade wrote: »

And surely this, beyond anything else, is the absolute crux of the matter.

I agree with you here.

starbelgrade wrote: »

The only difference that remains however, is that some people would like to see their views imposed over other people's rights to choose what they can or cannot do.

Some people believe there is such thing as "the right thing" and some people think that they should be able to do what they will, even if it means ignoring another human life and the rights that go with it.

Even if we are discussing rights. Without life there are no rights, even still, it isn't a right to end someone else's life, and I hope it never will be. When a choice interferes with someone else's rights, it isn't a right.

People love to hear about rights, but they don't like to hear about responsibilities. This discussion is a living testament to that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed.
Even if you argue that abortion is imoral, you can't force your own moral beliefs on the mother.

How come we have laws against stealing, rape, perjury and so on?

Is it because people are forcing their own moral beliefs on others? Or is it because we need to have ground rules in order to function as a society?

People have to impose restrictions on behaviour when it is interfering with the rights of others. That's exactly what our State did with abortion.

This is why your argument is flawed. Every society on earth imposes rules on its citizens.

Hazlittle

Hazlittle wrote: »

His argument is basis on ration deduction, wereas yours is based on a personal ideology. I'm not a fan of laws being based on other peoples ideology.

To be honest, both of us are arguing based on rational deduction. The assumptions we make before deducing are different. While I disagree with him, he argued clearly and logically, and I'm sure he would say the same of me.

Irish people were considered to lack cognition.

Come on. There's a difference between being considered slow of mind and having no cognition at all.
Intelligence doesn't equal cognition.

99% they choose to get pregnant.

136% of statistics quoted are made up on the spot :rolleyes:

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

How come we have laws against stealing, rape, perjury and so on?

Is it because people are forcing their own moral beliefs on others? Or is it because we need to have ground rules in order to function as a society?

People have to impose restrictions on behaviour when it is interfering with the rights of others. That's exactly what our State did with abortion.

This is why your argument is flawed. Every society on earth imposes rules on its citizens.

Jews would think it immoral to work on the Sabbath. However, in this country they would be allowed to do this, under law. It only contravenes their own moral system.
(I chose this as an example, but I'm not impling there has to be a religious reason for a stance on abortion).

Laws against stealing, rape, murder, etc. prevent anarchy, keep order and ensure the smooth running of society.

Not everybody shares the same belief as you on abortion, and it is not one of these crimes that would lead to chaos, or that is found universally reprehensible, therefore it is a matter of choice for the woman, depending on her moral code. This is much like the choice people face over whether to work on the Sabbath.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Jews would think it immoral to work on the Sabbath. However, in this country they would be allowed to do this, under law. It only contravenes their own moral system.
(I chose this as an example, but I'm not impling there has to be a religious reason for a stance on abortion).

There is a clear difference. By working on the Sabbath, I am not depriving the rights of any other individual. Indeed the same is not true of not working on the Sabbath.

By legalising abortion, we would be denying the rights to thousands to live.

One is not denying any right, the other is. It's a matter of defending equal liberty for all people.

Deleted User wrote: »

Laws against stealing, rape, murder, etc. prevent anarchy, keep order and ensure the smooth running of society.

They are also there to prevent people violating others rights and freedoms. They are there to prevent people going beyond what they have authority to do.

It is reasonable to say that people have rights, but when people invade or infringe on the rights of others, that is no longer acceptable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not everybody shares the same belief as you on abortion, and it is not one of these crimes that would lead to chaos, or that is found universally reprehensible, therefore it is a matter of choice for the woman, depending on her moral code. This is much like the choice people face over whether to work on the Sabbath.

Not everyone shares the same belief as some in relation to stealing, perjury, rape, paedophilia, polygamy, or incest. Yet they are all firmly illegal in our country.

The people decided by referendum to make abortion illegal in Ireland, it will require the people to decide to make it legal.

It isn't about belief, it is about law, and protecting the liberty of others. It is nowhere near the Sabbath example.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Not everyone shares the same belief as some in relation to stealing, perjury, rape, paedophilia, polygamy, or incest. Yet they are all firmly illegal in our country.

The people decided by referendum to make abortion illegal in Ireland, it will require the people to decide to make it legal.

It isn't about belief, it is about law, and protecting the liberty of others. It is nowhere near the Sabbath example.

Ah but it is, because the majority of people here don't believe abortion does infringe the rights of others.
This is probably not respresentative of the entire population of Ireland though. I imagine it's much closer to 50:50.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah but it is, because the majority of people here don't believe abortion does infringe the rights of others.
This is probably not respresentative of the entire population of Ireland though. I imagine it's much closer to 50:50.

We've already been through the case for recognising the unborn as individuals, as human life. Currently the legal status recognises the same. The arguments so far for a pro-choice position haven't really alleviated any of the confirmation that the unborn are individuals that are worthy of respect.

If society wishes to change the law in the future, they should campaign to their TD's over it. Right now, we respect the life and the rights of the unborn legally. I am defending this position that the people took.

Erica<3

I'm pro-choice, in that i believe the woman, and the father of the baby, should decide what to do. Primarily the mother, but the father should be told should he have future problems with fertility, he would need to know that he fathered a child at one stage.

If it was me whoever, I would have the baby, I wouldn't be able to live with it if I didn't, especially if i couldn't conceive in the future.

dcmu

I dunno guys, I was once pro-abortion, but I read somewhere it can have detrimental effects to your unborn child and that put me right off!

altairscreed

I think abortion should only be allowed in this country for people in special situations, it's an absolute disgrace in England where some people use abortion as a form of contraception having several abortions a year, in my opinion its just not right

Hazlittle

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Wow,off topic.







Sorry?99% of women who get terminations choose to become pregnant?Please clarify,because that sounds utterly stupid and false.

No its not off topic. You mentioned we arent as civilised as our neighboring countries. I would argue we are far more civilised that most western countries. I'm a very proud Irish man.

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed.
Even if you argue that abortion is imoral, you can't force your own moral beliefs on the mother.

Morals? So legalise rape, murder and slander?

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on. There's a difference between being considered slow of mind and having no cognition at all.
Intelligence doesn't equal cognition.



136% of statistics quoted are made up on the spot :rolleyes:

So never heard of the phrase "white ******" or "white monkey"? When I lived in England I can tell you first hand they dont consider us equal.

Yep I made that up. Its a figure of speech. I more educated estimate would be 99.6% based ton what I was told in passing on how abortions are done in Ireland and how many people go to England for abortions.

Deleted User wrote: »

Jews would think it immoral to work on the Sabbath. However, in this country they would be allowed to do this, under law. It only contravenes their own moral system.
(I chose this as an example, but I'm not impling there has to be a religious reason for a stance on abortion).

Laws against stealing, rape, murder, etc. prevent anarchy, keep order and ensure the smooth running of society.

Not everybody shares the same belief as you on abortion, and it is not one of these crimes that would lead to chaos, or that is found universally reprehensible, therefore it is a matter of choice for the woman, depending on her moral code. This is much like the choice people face over whether to work on the Sabbath.

Corpus Iuris Hibernici mentions that abortion is an offense because it is destroying something which is not the property of the mother. I.E. the unborns life is not the property of the mother. Destroying an unborn is destroying something which is not yours. Like stealing, rape or murder.

dcmu wrote: »

I dunno guys, I was once pro-abortion, but I read somewhere it can have detrimental effects to your unborn child and that put me right off!

That is pretty funny.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

We've already been through the case for recognising the unborn as individuals, as human life. Currently the legal status recognises the same. The arguments so far for a pro-choice position haven't really alleviated any of the confirmation that the unborn are individuals that are worthy of respect.

If society wishes to change the law in the future, they should campaign to their TD's over it. Right now, we respect the life and the rights of the unborn legally. I am defending this position that the people took.

Non of the arguments so far have been convincing for the case that the unborn are indiviuals worthy of respect either.

You have asserted this as if it were fact, and made no attempt to explain how you came to the conclusion.

I tried to explain why I have come to the conclusion that they are not individuals worthy of respect, as you put it, based on rational reasoning about cognition.
I accept that you are not swayed by those same arguments, but I would like to hear how you came to believe that the unborn has a special right to life, other than by decree or convention. I'm not suggesting you don't have a reason, just inquiring as to what it is, because you didn't outline it.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Non of the arguments so far have been convincing for the case that the unborn are indiviuals worthy of respect either.

Ah Conor, come on! Even you yourself have conceded that the foetus is alive! For some reason to consider it as human is too much, even though it is formed of human biological material, and constitutes a single life cycle from conception to death.

I've clearly explained that it is fallacious to hold standards based on age, or on criterion.

Age is fallacious as who is to say that a younger life is of necessity not a human. One could merely move the goalposts up and down to where it is appropriate.

Other criterion are also fallacious for reasons, firstly as these criterion do not negatively affect there being biological life exhibited in the foetus which is comprised of human biological prerequisites.

You also haven't explained how such extra criterion as not different to societies through their philosophies of minorities have defined groups such as Jews and blacks as being sub-human. This is the same in respect to how other societies are devaluing life, and disregarding the foetus as a human in its own right.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have asserted this as if it were fact, and made no attempt to explain how you came to the conclusion.

I've gone step, by step through every objection clarifying where the reasoning has gone from. To say that I have made no attempt is a bit disingenuous. I would say that I have made every attempt to show you my reasoning.

Deleted User wrote: »

I tried to explain why I have come to the conclusion that they are not individuals worthy of respect, as you put it, based on rational reasoning about cognition.

Yet, there has been no justification to show that cognition is necessary for something to be alive or to be considered human, in the same way that being a classical guitarist is necessary to be human. Both of those standards are extra criterion, as I described earlier. We can tell that something is a human life biologically without these extra criterion.

In a sense, such extra criterion muddy the waters, and hinder the discussion.

Deleted User wrote: »

I accept that you are not swayed by those same arguments, but I would like to hear how you came to believe that the unborn has a special right to life, other than by decree or convention. I'm not suggesting you don't have a reason, just inquiring as to what it is, because you didn't outline it.

I'm not swayed by them, because they are inadequate when put to the test.

I don't regard it as a "belief" so much as it is based on what we can know. Belief implies that it is based on something that is unverifiable. It is a part of my value system that every living human is deserving of equal treatment, and of equal rights. This extends to human life that exhibits biological growth from conception. It is based on the knowledge that growth cannot exist in a biological organism without it being alive.

If you want to know where the value system comes from, or my source of morality, I unfortunately cannot go into detail into that here. My signature might be a clue.

Max Power1

vinylmesh wrote: »

Well see, that's the thing. When does terminating life become wrong? What factor can be used to draw a clear line?

The clearest point to draw the line imo is whether or not you are directly taking away future concious life. Which, I'm afraid to say, puts abortion at the wrong side of the moral line. By aborting a fetus you are directly taking future consious life away from it, if you were to not interfere with the system and leave things as they are the fetus would become a baby.

.

Is having a **** not ok then also?

If you were to not interfere, theres a million possible future lives there?

Prof.Badass

Max Power1 wrote: »

Is having a **** not ok then also?

If you were to not interfere, theres a million possible future lives there?

**** does not cross the moral line. A sperm cell on it's own has no future life. It would require (quite significant) human interferance to ever become a fetus. And with all the millions of sperm out there in the world this would be an impossible task.
Left to it's own devices an sperm cell will never become concious. However, by losing them in ****/protected sex* they can do some good by improving the quality of life of millions worldwide :D.

Also, do separated sperm and ova meet the humanity requirement (as otherwise it would also be wrong to kill animals)? I would say there is a strong case for saying they don't.

*Unfortunately none of these arguments cover the morning after pill, which if you've been observant enough you will have realised falls on the wrong side of the moral line i have drawn

moonpurple

here is Barack Obama's view:

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..
There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that’s a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

from
http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm

Lemegeton

100% pro choice

Max Power1

vinylmesh wrote: »

**** does not cross the moral line. A sperm cell on it's own has no future life. It would require (quite significant) human interferance to ever become a fetus. And with all the millions of sperm out there in the world this would be an impossible task.
Left to it's own devices an sperm cell will never become concious. However, by losing them in ****/protected sex* they can do some good by improving the quality of life of millions worldwide :D.

Also, do separated sperm and ova meet the humanity requirement (as otherwise it would also be wrong to kill animals)? I would say there is a strong case for saying they don't.

*Unfortunately none of these arguments cover the morning after pill, which if you've been observant enough you will have realised falls on the wrong side of the moral line i have drawn

Surely that falls under a definition of human interference to stop a conception which would other wise occur, and should be outlawed too?

Sgt Hartman

I'm pro-life. I can understand it in cases of rape, incest or the discovery of a serious chronic abnormalities that would give the child no quality of life. However as a method of contraception I believe it's abhorrent and morally wrong.

My twin nephews were born at 23 weeks. To think that a child can be aborted at that time and their body just chucked into a biohazard bag to await incineration is, for me, like something you'd read in a horror novel.

I went to a seminar in the University of Limerick a few years back in which abortion survivor Gianna Jessen was giving a speech. Here's some info on her for those interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen

philologos

Max Power1 wrote: »

Surely that falls under a definition of human interference to stop a conception which would other wise occur, and should be outlawed too?

There is a difference between killing formed life, and preventing life from forming.

One stage is much later than the other, and by that stage there is a human life to be considered. Before then, it is only the responsible thing to prevent life from forming if you are not willing to bring it to full term.