Keep abortion out of Ireland

Benny_Cake

The Brigadier wrote: »

Jernal wrote: »

It all boils down to what they consider a person to be.

And why do they think that they have the right to decide?

In reality, someone gets to make that decision, somebody has to call it whether it is at conception, implantation, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and so on. I'm personally against abortion at any stage but in saying that I'm reaching that decision by myself, not because someone else says it is so. I have to assume that the majority of people who support abortion rights are also making that decision sincerely and in good faith, even though I'm in complete disagreement with them on the issue.

1huge1

While if I was put in the situation where my partner and I did not want to raise the child, I would rather see it put up for adoption as there are many couples out there unable to have children.

On the other hand, I have always considered myself a libertarian and it is for that reason that I say, who am I to tell someone else what to do with their body. It is a personal decision, not a decision to be left up to the state. For that reason alone I am pro choice and I honestly don't see that ever changing.

Wh1stler

The Brigadier wrote: »

And why do they think that they have the right to decide?

Human beings with free will?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

The Brigadier wrote: »

And why do they think that they have the right to decide?

There's no issue of rights here. Someone has to decide what a person is and that frankly isn't the easiest or most clear cut decision to make.

yammycat

We are in a pretty serious economic depression now with a lot of jobless, Irish women are going to England to get abortions regardless of the morals, the abortions will happen if the woman wants one, all the handwringing will do is make her buy a plane or boat ticket. We should legalise abortion here as it would create jobs and keep the money in the Irish economy.

Peregrinus

yammycat wrote: »

We are in a pretty serious economic depression now with a lot of jobless, Irish women are going to England to get abortions regardless of the morals, the abortions will happen if the woman wants one, all the handwringing will do is make her buy a plane or boat ticket. We should legalise abortion here as it would create jobs and keep the money in the Irish economy.

Well, no, I don't think that argument will fly. If there's a serious ethical issue over abortion, I don't think the ethical issue disappears just because we can make a few shillings out of performing abortions.

Peregrinus

Jernal wrote: »

There's no issue of rights here. Someone has to decide what a person is and that frankly isn't the easiest or most clear cut decision to make.

And this is the problem.

The last few pages of this thread have been dominated by posts which make absolute claims about which entities are, and which are not, human "persons".

These claims are important and weighty, but many of them are inconsistent, and none of them can be objectively verified or demonstrated.

It seems to me that the challenge is not to decide which of these claims are true and which are false - we are never going to reach agreement on that, and demonstration of truth or falsity is impossible - but rather to decide, given that we don't and won't agree on this fairly fundamental matter, how we as a society should approach the question of abortion? Is there an approach to this which recognises and respects the diversity of opinion?

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

I suggest you stop reading nonsense from anti-abortion sites.

Yo Zombrex, thought you might like this one:

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

"As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words 'unborn child,' even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality." —Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)

IT-Guy

Peregrinus wrote: »

And this is the problem.

The last few pages of this thread have been dominated by posts which make absolute claims about which entities are, and which are not, human "persons".

These claims are important and weighty, but many of them are inconsistent, and none of them can be objectively verified or demonstrated.

It seems to me that the challenge is not to decide which of these claims are true and which are false - we are never going to reach agreement on that, and demonstration of truth or falsity is impossible - but rather to decide, given that we don't and won't agree on this fairly fundamental matter, how we as a society should approach the question of abortion? Is there an approach to this which recognises and respects the diversity of opinion?

Yes, the pro-choice position. If you don't want an abortion then don't get one, if you wish to avail of this service then there's no reason why you should have to travel abroad to get one. It's absolute nonsense because of religious convictions to castigate those that don't wish to see their pregnancies through. Also I firmly believe it is ultimately a woman's choice as they will be the ones to carry the baby.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only if one considers that the right to occupy another person's body is an individual liberty. I doubt many Libertarians do, since they consider an individual's liberty to be paramount.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Yo Zombrex, thought you might like this one:

Oh well, if Christopher Hitchens said it .... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, have you a citation for any part of what Festus quoted?

I do but given that Festus has a habit of asking for stuff and then doing nothing with it when pretended with it I'm not falling over myself to rush out and get them for him, particularly when there are a number of different things discussed in the post I made and he seems to have no interest himself in going into detail over what he wants to know more about. If it was a genuine request because he was interested, rather than simply a stalling tactic, I might be more inclined.

Sonics2k

Festus wrote: »

Yo Zombrex, thought you might like this one:

Why are people under this strange belief that if Hitchens said it, then all Atheists or similar would agree with him?

Don't get me wrong, I've read all of his stuff and really loved his speeches, but I was still opposed to his views of the Iraq War and a few other things.

gimmebroadband

When it comes to abortion, only one "choice" is considered - the mother's.
It's more an ultimatum for the baby.

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Why are people under this strange belief that if Hitchens said it, then all Atheists or similar would agree with him?

I don't think the implication is that if Hitchens said it, all atheists must agreee with it; just that if Hitchens said it, it cannot be classed as a view which can only be held out of religious conviction.

Sonics2k

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the implication is that if Hitchens said it, all atheists must agreee with it; just that if Hitchens said it, it cannot be classed as a view which can only be held out of religious conviction.

And where is it said that only the Religious are anti-abortion?

I know plenty of Atheists/Agnostics who are quite anti abortion, and even a few Christians who are pro-choice.

That was a simply case of Festus attempting to be a smart-arse, really.

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

And where is it said that only the Religious are anti-abortion?

Well, for example, in this very thread, it was strongly implied about four hours ago, by IT-Guy, in post #521.

In post #519 I pointed out that there isn't agreement about when human "personhood" begins, that the question is not a scientific one or capable of being scientifically settled and that future agreement on this question seems unlikely, and I asked how we could approach the question in a way which recognises and respects the fact that there is a diversity of views held in society.

IT-Guy's response, in post #521, was to suggest that the best way of respecting this diversity of views was to disregard entirely, in public policy, the view that personhood is found at conception. And the only reason he offers for discounting this view is that it's held "out of religious conviction", and therefore it's "absolute nonsense" to base public policy on it.

And I don't think IT-Guy's position is unusual. It's quite common for people to propose a legal abortion regime which attaches no weight at all to the view that the foetus has any interest to be respected or protected, and to justify it by saying that religiously-held views must be disregarded in the public policy of a secular state. Whether the argument from secularity is weak or strong, it falls over completely once it is conceded that a "personhood from conception" viewpoint can be held on other than religious grounds. Which, as you and I agree, it can.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

Why are people under this strange belief that if Hitchens said it, then all Atheists or similar would agree with him?

Don't get me wrong, I've read all of his stuff and really loved his speeches, but I was still opposed to his views of the Iraq War and a few other things.

It is the advantage of not following what people say as if they are, er, gospel.

Hitchens would, ironically enough for Fetus' rather ignorant post, be the last person to think anyone should agree with what he said simply because he said it.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the implication is that if Hitchens said it, all atheists must agreee with it; just that if Hitchens said it, it cannot be classed as a view which can only be held out of religious conviction.

When did I ever say it was? (Hitchen's was pro-choice by the way, not that particular matters)

Festus should perhaps focus more on building his own position and arguments in support of that position than focusing so much on what other people say. Though as Sonic says, it may just be he is trying to be a smart arse.

Benny_Cake

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems to me that the challenge is not to decide which of these claims are true and which are false - we are never going to reach agreement on that, and demonstration of truth or falsity is impossible - but rather to decide, given that we don't and won't agree on this fairly fundamental matter, how we as a society should approach the question of abortion? Is there an approach to this which recognises and respects the diversity of opinion?

I'm not sure that there is such a way, since it will always come down to the core issue of whether abortion is legally available or not, in this country at least. I would think though that it should at least be possible for most people on both sides of the argument to say that whether legal or not, it certainly isn't a desirable outcome and we should look at the reasons why some women choose to get abortions in order that steps might be taken to reduce the numbers. Take economic factors - it always annoys me when some people in the pro-life camp (and this seems to be something of a theme in right-wing American politics) argue that abortion is the worst thing imaginable and should be outlawed, and that at the same time single mothers are a drain on the taxpayer and should receive no benefits. So I would think that there should be grounds for both sides of the debate to work together on finding ways of reducing the numbers of crisis pregnancies.

Festus

Sonics2k wrote: »

That was a simply case of Festus attempting to be a smart-arse, really.

Really? And how would you describe this?

Zombrex wrote:

I suggest you stop reading nonsense from anti-abortion sites.

So I figured it might be helpful to present some atheist "nonesense" in addition to the medical and scientific "nonesense" I had already been reading.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

So I figured it might be helpful to present some atheist "nonesense" in addition to the medical and scientific "nonesense" I had already been reading.

Can you point out where Christopher Hitchens said a foetus has a brain after 3 weeks, or that human sperm are not human?

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you point out where Christopher Hitchens said a foetus has a brain after 3 weeks, or that human sperm are not human?

I can point you towards the medical and scientific literature that states that the life of a human being begins at conception, when the sperm and egg meet and fuse to form a new unique human individual. (It may later divide and give rise to twins or trips or more but lets not complicate things)

I can also point you towards some secondary school biology text books for the answer that human sperm cells are human. Depending on the book it may also state that they are not human beings.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How purposeful the occupation is is not relevant to the argument.

Under the argument the foetus would have no more right to occupy the woman's body simply because it is unaware it is, any more than you have the right to occupy someones house simply because you are sleep walking.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it is to a Libertarian when it comes to bodily privacy. I'm not a Libertarian by the way, but so far you have not provided a counter to their argument.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I can point you towards the medical and scientific literature that states that the life of a human being begins at conception, when the sperm and egg meet and fuse to form a new unique human individual.

I can also point you towards some secondary school biology text books for the answer that human sperm cells are human. Depending on the book it may also state that they are not human beings.

But not Christopher Hitchens then?

Morbert

So, a few pages later, the conclusion is still:

Sperm and eggs are human, but not human beings. Similarly, depending on your philosophy, a fertilised egg is human, but may or may not be a human being.

Everyone agrees with the science, people disagree over what is a human being. Pro-life advocates (from what I can tell) believe DNA defines a human being. Pro-choice advocates believe a mind defines a human being.

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

Yo Zombrex, thought you might like this one:

Not everything that Hitchens says should be taken literally.

You have to be able to distinguish between the truth and a metaphor for the truth.

He was actually saying 'If materialism existed it would take the position that...' etc.

Not everything is the book is meant to be taken literally. :P

Sonics2k

Wh1stler wrote: »

Not everything that Hitchens says should be taken literally.

You have to be able to distinguish between the truth and a metaphor for the truth.

He was actually saying 'If materialism existed it would take the position that...' etc.

Not everything is the book is meant to be taken literally. :P

I'm sure I've heard that before :pac: