Government TD blames 'fornication' for unwanted pregnancies

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'll defend the rights of any mother insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of other human lives, that includes the unborn child.

So from your perspective, the right of the unborn supercedes the rights of the mother.

philologos

koth wrote: »

So from your perspective, the right of the unborn supercedes the rights of the mother.

Both should come to a medium. I do think the right to life is fundamental.

The real choice as to whether or not one should have a child, should come before pregnancy not after as far as I can tell. It does not justify taking life.

mikom

philologos wrote: »

Both should come to a medium. I do think the right to life is fundamental.

The real choice as to whether or not one should have a child, should come before pregnancy not after as far as I can tell. It does not justify taking life.

If your wife was raped and fell pregnant to the rapist......... would you wish her to carry the child?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Both should come to a medium. I do think the right to life is fundamental.

The real choice as to whether or not one should have a child, should come before pregnancy not after as far as I can tell. It does not justify taking life.

Of course things should be considered before any pregnancy. But we're discussing what happens if a woman finds herself pregnant.

Until technology exists that a foetus can be removed so that a woman doesn't have to carry it to term if she doesn't want to, you either choose to respect the womans right or you decide that the foetus now takes priority.

philologos

I think ultimately that it is unjustified to take away life as a matter of choice. Both rights need to be considered, rather than just one. That's why I think there should be support and guidance to help mothers in this situation to bring the child to full birth, and from then on to consider things such as adoption.

I respect both. You're presenting a false dichotomy. I don't believe it's a right to kill, that's the key difference. I think mentioning killing is extremely serious. Too serious to be a matter of choice.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I think ultimately that it is unjustified to take away life as a matter of choice. Both rights need to be considered, rather than just one. That's why I think there should be support and guidance to help mothers in this situation to bring the child to full birth, and from then on to consider things such as adoption.

I respect both. I don't believe it's a right to kill.

But you are telling a woman that she must carry something in her body for approximately 9 months so that the child will come into being.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

If your wife was raped and fell pregnant to the rapist......... would you wish her to carry the child?

philologos wrote: »

I think ultimately that it is unjustified to take away life as a matter of choice. Both rights need to be considered, rather than just one. That's why I think there should be support and guidance to help mothers in this situation to bring the child to full birth, and from then on to consider things such as adoption.

I respect both. You're presenting a false dichotomy. I don't believe it's a right to kill, that's the key difference. I think mentioning killing is extremely serious. Too serious to be a matter of choice.

So basically you are telling me that you would wish for your wife to carry and give birth to a rapists child should she be so unfortunate to be raped and impregnated by one.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I think ultimately that it is unjustified to take away life as a matter of choice. Both rights need to be considered, rather than just one. That's why I think there should be support and guidance to help mothers in this situation to bring the child to full birth, and from then on to consider things such as adoption.

I respect both. You're presenting a false dichotomy. I don't believe it's a right to kill, that's the key difference. I think mentioning killing is extremely serious. Too serious to be a matter of choice.

What does a married woman do if she becomes pregnant with her rapist's child? She can't legally give it up for adoption.

Are you going to take care of every single child born who isn't wanted?

I find pro-life people are actually pro forced pregnancy. They're usually the first up complaining about supports given to single parents and the demise of the family unit, while smugly proclaiming how they are pro life. Until you know what its like to carry a child in your uterus, you can't know a thing about how awful it would be to force another woman to carry a child she doesn't want.

riclad

I don,t think its fair to discuss possible laws re abortion ,from the viewpoint of 1 religion, ie dont presume everyone is a catholic or a jew or a follower religion x.ITS better to make laws that will be fairly applied to everyone ,whether they believe in god,or nothing, should be irrelevant .
Contraception ,divorce are legal, even though its against church law.
WE are a multicultural society, are we going to make laws that follow jewish ,or muslim teachings,if we get 1000s of muslims living here at some point.
Nobody is being forced to use contraception ,if it goes against your
beliefs, if you are a practising catholic ,you probably won,t get an abortion, whether its legal in ireland or not.
Women are going to the uk anyway for abortions.
I don,t think its the job of tds to be lecturing people on their sex lives , its non of their business.
IT would be more mature to recognise ,practisng catholic,s are in the minority, going to a wedding or funeral ,doesnt make you a catholic.

philologos

koth wrote: »

But you are telling a woman that she must carry something in her body for approximately 9 months so that the child will come into being.

And you are telling a woman that they have a right to kill a child.

The child is already in being. It's just in-utero rather than ex-utero. Some of the stuff being mentioned here in terms of the child being in-utero would be absolutely abhorrent and barbaric if taken ex-utero. For example a woman killing a new born child. What's the difference between killing a new born child rather than one that is in-utero? - From my perspective it's much the same.

There's a fundamental denial of the child's human rights occurring. In Russia there are more abortions than live births. Does that not make you think for a minute? In my case it certainly does. Breaking Godwin's law here - but that's over 7 times the death toll of the Holocaust. That's not particularly acceptable to me.

My position on this really can't change unless there is a means of ending a pregnancy without killing a child.

richlad: It's not on the basis of one religion, it's simple logic why one would oppose abortion-by-choice.

up for anything

philologos wrote: »

mikom: The right to life is fundamental, without it you have no other rights. The reason why I will never agree with abortion-by-choice is because I don't agree that a persons life should be taken away by a mere choice. That's why I suggest that there should be a middle ground reached between the rights of the child, and the rights of the mother. That's the reasonable way to look at it.

And you and your bible and your god will decide what is reasonable for me? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

philologos wrote: »

And you are telling a woman that they have a right to kill a child.......

.....richlad: It's not on the basis of one religion, it's simple logic why one would oppose abortion-by-choice.

By your definition a child, by many other people's definition not a child.

What exactly is the simple logic as to why one should oppose abortion-by-choice?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

And you are telling a woman that they have a right to kill a child.

No I'm not. I'm saying that a woman should be allowed to abort a pregnancy before the child comes into being. The lack of a physical brain means to me that there is no person in existence yet.

I don't understand how you can say that a child exists if there is no physical brain.

The child is already in being. It's just in-utero rather than ex-utero. Some of the stuff being mentioned here in terms of the child being in-utero would be absolutely abhorrent and barbaric if taken ex-utero. For example a woman killing a new born child. What's the difference between killing a new born child rather than one that is in-utero? - From my perspective it's much the same.

Big difference between the two. Reading some information on the various stages of pregnancy would tell you that. I'm not for abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, only at the earlier stages of the pregnancy.

There's a fundamental denial of the child's human rights occurring. In Russia there are more abortions than live births. Does that not make you think for a minute? In my case it certainly does. Breaking Godwin's law here - but that's over 7 times the death toll of the Holocaust. That's not particularly acceptable to me.

It does. It begs the question as to why so many women have unwanted pregnancies. Address the reasons for that and the abortion rate should reduce.

My position on this really can't change unless there is a means of ending a pregnancy without killing a child.

That's fine. You don't have to get an abortion then. But forcing women to carry children to term even though they don't agree with you is cruel.

philologos

koth wrote: »

That's fine. You don't have to get an abortion then. But forcing women to carry children to term even though they don't agree with you is cruel.

There's a lot I will tolerate. Killing an innocent unborn child as a matter of choice is not one of them. Human rights including those of the child should be legislated for not ignored.

It's flippant to say that I don't have one. It's flippant to say don't join in genocide if you don't want to. It's manifestly wrong. That's why I'm intolerant of it.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

There's a lot I will tolerate. Killing an innocent unborn child as a matter of choice is not one of them. Human rights including those of the child should be legislated for not ignored.

It's flippant to say that I don't have one. It's flippant to say don't join in genocide if you don't want to. It's manifestly wrong. That's why I'm intolerant of it.

It's not flippant, philo. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

You haven't explained how a person can exist without a brain. You've said that the argument is beyond religion. Fine, then back up what you're saying with some facts. Otherwise, you're imposing an unsupported belief onto women.

If a person is brain dead they are recognised as dead, therefore how can a foetus that hasn't developed a brain be perceived as a living person?

donegal_road

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can be shocked or surprised by her comments. Fine Gael are a Christian Democratic party.

it further illustrates how members of the current government are of bellow average intelligence.. how in the hell are people of this 'quality' supposed to guide us through the most difficult period of our countries history?

Answer: they are not able and will fail to do so

Solair

Her speech sounded like something I'd have expected to hear in the days of Dev & Archbishop McQuaid !

Regardless of what the aim or the content was, the choice of language was very odd and conjures up images of an ultra conservative Ireland of 1940s/50s.

This is why I worry a bit about aspects of Fine Gael and also Fianna Fail. There's an extremely conservative aspect to them which does not sit well with me at all. It comes out now and again in debates like this.

The terminology that she used to me just screamed "this is a theocratic debating chamber".
The Dail is the primary legislation chamber in a Republic, it's not the Vatican council.

Discussing the social implications of single parents, and people having random sex with random partners and having random children is all very well, but it should not be put into this kind of medieval, religious, ranting language.

The words that jumped out to me were 'sin', 'fornication' and 'murder'.

Sort of straight out of a smoke and brimstone sermon from a bygone age or the US deep south.

That kind of language does not help open up a debate, rather it closes it down.

If you want to do something about unwanted pregnancies in Ireland, it would be worth looking at perusing the fathers for child support. As it stands there is definitely a bit of a culture of guys having kids and expecting the mother to just pick up support from the state. By all means, give them support, as it's only fair on the kid, but go after the father's income to recoup it if he's unwilling to help look after his own kids!

Expecting a dad to at least financially contribute to the support of his own kids is not exactly a radical new idea and genuinely don't think the Dept of Social Welfare does enough to ensure that happens.

I don't care what the family arrangement is, whether you're married, single, straight, bi, gay, or whatever, but a kid shouldn't end up being reliant on the state because one parent just opts out of any responsibility for them.

mikom

philologos wrote: »

My position on this really can't change unless there is a means of ending a pregnancy without killing a child.

mikom wrote: »

So basically you are telling me that you would wish for your wife to carry and give birth to a rapists child should she be so unfortunate to be raped and impregnated by one.

Still waiting for an answer on this.....

Solair

I think the present situation regarding abortion in Ireland only exists because of the safety relief valve of Britain and the NHS and possibly a few other countries too.

If it weren't for easy access to Britain in particular, I think you would have a much more vigorous debate here about the issue. As it stands, it gets swept under the carpet and in reality, our abortion rate is probably not exactly low, it's just not documented and occurs outside the jurisdiction.

I am not arguing right vs wrong here, I am just comparing Ireland with the rest of the developed world, and we are probably the only country where the de jure (legal) situation is that abortion can be carried out where a woman's life is at risk and the de facto situation is that hospitals probably won't do it anyway as the legal situation is totally unclear.

Compare us with the rest of Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Europe and you'll notice that most of those countries aren't exactly all that liberal about abortion, but even the most conservative, Malta, has a de facto case where it would be carried out in the event of a risk to the life of the mother. Ireland is listed as de facto no!

Also take a look at where we are on the map!

shopaholic01

[QUOTE=philologos;78280925]And you are telling a woman that they have a right to kill a child.

Are you saying that an embyro/foetus without awareness has the right to use the mother as an unwilling incubator?
That would put it on the same level as a parasite.

philologos

mikom wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer on this.....

You're not the only one that I'm trying to respond to. Patience is a good quality.

Being consistent with my position. I don't see why the child is any more deserving of death even in that situation I think that it would be better to provide key support for the mother to bring the child to life rather than putting it to death.

I understand that it is an extremely difficult issue, but nonetheless that's where I think it is right for me to stand on it.

mikom

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikom
So basically you are telling me that you would wish for your wife to carry and give birth to a rapists child should she be so unfortunate to be raped and impregnated by one.

Still waiting for an answer on this.....

philologos wrote: »

You're not the only one that I'm trying to respond to. Patience is a good quality.

Being consistent with my position. I don't see why the child is any more deserving of death even in that situation I think that it would be better to provide key support for the mother to bring the child to life rather than putting it to death.

I understand that it is an extremely difficult issue, but nonetheless that's where I think it is right for me to stand on it.

If you were married to my sister in that situation.... well, let's just say we would have words...

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

Are you going to take care of every single child born who isn't wanted?

Where did you hear this by the by? - I'd be interested in seeing this law.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

If you were married to my sister in that situation.... well, let's just say we would have words...

In fairness to him it does mean he is consistently pro life

nothing I hate more than the "well it wasn't her fault so I suddenly don't care about the foetus anymore" pro-punishment sh!te

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Where did you hear this by the by? - I'd be interested in seeing this law.

You propose adoption as the solution for unwanted babies. How many unwanted children do you plan on adopting from women who don't want them?

Also, you still haven't addressed the point about married couples who cannot legally give a child up for adoption. What do they do if they become pregnant and don't want the child?

philologos

Could you please answer my question? You claimed it was illegal for a mother to put a child into adoption if she was raped - Where did you get this from or was it just an assumption?

On adoption - in my previous post I said if I was married, I would be more than happy to consider adoption with my partner. At present I'm not in that situation, but I hope to be in the future God willing.

I don't believe there isn't a demand for adoption, particularly amongst couples who can't conceive themselves.

I'm also keen towards seeing the number of unplanned pregnancies in general drop. This means less abortions.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Could you please answer my question? You claimed it was illegal for a mother to put a child into adoption if she was raped - Where did you get this from or was it just an assumption?

See in my previous posts. If I was married, I would be more than happy to consider adoption with my partner. At present I'm not in that situation, but I hope to be in the future God willing.

I'm also keen towards seeing the number of unplanned pregnancies in general drop. This means less abortions.

It's illegal for a married woman to give up a child for adoption in Ireland, be she pregnant through rape or not. I am married-if I am raped I and become pregnant I cannot give the unwanted product of that rape for adoption.


So you want unwanted children to be born, yet have no intention of taking any responsibility for them by adopting them yourself? Lovely. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.

Delirium

And if you have a moment, philo, could you explain how a person exists without a physical brain. much obliged

philologos

lazygal: I'll ask you again. Where did you hear that? Or where is the law so I can have a look at it?

I also think you are dishonest in saying that this:

See in my previous posts. If I was married, I would be more than happy to consider adoption with my partner. At present I'm not in that situation, but I hope to be in the future God willing.

means I would never consider it. Being single is not a good context for raising any child. Therefore I would want to be in a stable marriage before considering that topic. That's what is best.

It's idle rhetoric to lob that accusation at me. I think that's dishonest of you, and actually quite horrible, but that's up for you to think about.

koth: The very fact that it is a human life, much as we are, means that we should honour its liberties. Your argument is based on an arbitrary point of development. You're saying, that because an unborn child is less developed than you we can kill it. What if I said that I thought that a child wasn't truly a person until it could juggle 1024 oranges while cycling on a unicycle whilst playing a violin? Would that be reasonable? Absolutely not.

Extending your argument ex-utero, I could claim that because a mother is more developed than a three year old child that she has the right to commit infanticide. That's equally as dubious as in-utero as far as I can tell.

Simply put, I see things as they are. That is that human life begins at conception. The principle of common empathy, the idea that we're all in this life thing together in a more secular view, or that we're all created in God's image in a Judeo-Christian one leads me to believe that we should honour and respect the rights of all. The right to life is most fundamental, without it there are no other rights.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'll ask you again. Where did you hear that? Or where is the law so I can have a look at it?

I also think you are dishonest in saying that this:

means I would never consider it. Being single is not a good context for raising any child. Therefore I would want to be in a stable marriage before considering that topic. That's what is best.

It's idle rhetoric to lob that accusation at me.

Its one of the reasons we need a referendum on the rights of the child in Ireland. The supreme court has found that married couples cannot give a child up for adoption. Its the law in Ireland.

So you're more concerned about being in a stable marriage than looking after an unwanted child? Are you just going to press pause on the childhoods of all unwanted children until you're in a perfect situation to look after them? You know women with unwanted pregnancies don't have the luxury of waiting until things are just how they want them before making a decision on what to do with their child, they have a finite amount of time to make a decision.

philologos

lazygal: I asked you a simple question. Where did you hear that that is a law? I just want to see this backed up with something so I can have a look at it. At the moment I'm a little bit skeptical.

Stable marriage - best for a child. Me on my own - not best for a child. It's quite simple really.

By the by, I've acknowledged multiple times that it is a difficult situation for anyone to be in. Simply put, I don't advocate killing, and I think a child can still nonetheless fulfil ones potential even if they are in an orphanage. It's better than being killed isn't it?

If I had the choice to be in an orphanage or to die. I'd take the orphanage. It's better than death.

PrincessLola

F*ck this. Women aren't going to sit back and nod obediently like the did in times of old. This woman has messed with the wrong generation.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

lazygal: I asked you a simple question. Where did you hear that that is a law? I just want to see this backed up with something so I can have a look at it. At the moment I'm a little bit skeptical.

Stable marriage - best for a child. Me on my own - not best for a child.

So again, what about the unwanted children waiting about until you're in a better situation? Do they stay in limbo waiting for God to send you Ms Right?


The legislation governing adoption is the Adoption Act 2010.

As adoption is a complex legal process, it is helpful to be aware of the basics of adoption law.


Here's the law:
The HSE is the competent authority, under the Adoption Act 2010, for the processing of domestic adoptions.

The law allows the adoption of orphans and children born outside marriage (including, in certain circumstances, children whose natural parents subsequently marry each other).

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

koth: The very fact that it is a human life, much as we are, means that we should honour its liberties. Your argument is based on an arbitrary point of development. You're saying, that because an unborn child is less developed than you we can kill it. What if I said that I thought that a child wasn't truly a person until it could juggle 1024 oranges while cycling on a unicycle whilst playing a violin? Would that be reasonable? Absolutely not.

That doesn't answer the question though. How can a person exist if there is no physical brain? It just doesn't make sense to me. By your reasoning, brain dead doesn't mean a person is dead

Extending your argument ex-utero, I could claim that because a mother is more developed than a three year old child that she has the right to commit infanticide. That's equally as dubious as in-utero as far as I can tell.

Nonsense. Because the child has a brain, so from my stance a person exists. I'll agree that it would be murder at that point.

Simply put, I see things as they are. That is that human life begins at conception. The principle of common empathy, the idea that we're all in this life thing together in a more secular view, or that we're all created in God's image in a Judeo-Christian one leads me to believe that we should honour and respect the rights of all. The right to life is most fundamental, without it there are no other rights.

But you haven't explained how a person exists without a brain, and even though you said this discussion is outside religion, you're now using your religious beliefs to justify your stance. I've no problem with that btw, I'd just prefer if you were honest about it.

philologos

Thanks, I'll look up the Adoption Act 2010 and see if it prohibits a married woman from putting a child up for adoption in a situation of rape.

lazygal: I don't think I would be best on my own to raise any child. I naturally am concerned about children in this situation, and I have expressly said that if and hopefully when I am married, this will be definitely something of consideration.

It is a lie, and absolute dishonesty to claim that I don't care. I've no interest to engage with nonsense like that. What I am interested in is chatting about the issues.

philologos

koth wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question though. How can a person exist if there is no physical brain? It just doesn't make sense to me. By your reasoning, brain dead doesn't mean a person is dead

It questions the logic on which the question is founded. It's entirely arbitrary. You're saying because the child is less developed that people should have the right to kill it, rather than simply acknowledging that despite it being at a lesser stage of development that it has the same rights and liberties of all.

The foetus is very much alive, insofar as it is growing and developing in the womb, it would be dead if it weren't doing so. Biological growth and development is the result of life, and the life is the very same organism that is born, goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. It is the very same human that you are, and that very same human that I am.

To claim that the foetus (young one in Latin) is not a human life, is a fundamental denial of the truth.

koth wrote: »

Nonsense. Because the child has a brain, so from my stance a person exists. I'll agree that it would be murder at that point.

It's killing insofar as it is taking away a human life, that should be entitled to the same liberties as you or I have.

koth wrote: »

But you haven't explained how a person exists without a brain, and even though you said this discussion is outside religion, you're now using your religious beliefs to justify your stance. I've no problem with that btw, I'd just prefer if you were honest about it.

I've explained why the question doesn't make sense at all. It's merely an arbitrary standard that you are using to fudge the fact that there is a human life in the womb irrespective of how young it is, that's what it is. Being less developed does not give one the liberty to kill. Ex-utero that would be abhorrent. There seems to be very little justification for why it should be permissible in-utero.

It's like the 1024 oranges scenario. I could pick anything that suggests to me that the foetus is less developed, I could pick anything that suggests to me that a three year old child is less developed, or even that my peers may be less developed than me. Yet that becomes ludicrous. I don't see why it is any less ludicrous than these arbitrary standards that people impose on the abortion question.

One could even put across this position as an atheist. It doesn't particularly matter what faith you are in this question. Personally, I'm a Christian and yes that does have some implications for how I see this topic, but I'm happy to go through it step by step without any reference to it.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

It questions the logic on which the question is founded. It's entirely arbitrary. You're saying because the child is less developed that people should have the right to kill it, rather than simply acknowledging that despite it being at a lesser stage of development that it has the same rights and liberties of all.

Yes, I'm saying because a brain hasn't begun to develop that there is no person at that stage. The human person resides within the brain, therefore no brain, no person. You currently holding a position that conflicts with medical science, i.e. a person doesn't exist without a brain.

If you can explain how a person can exist without a physical brain, I'm willing to review my stance on this topic.

The foetus is very much alive, insofar as it is growing and developing in the womb, it would be dead if it weren't doing so. Biological growth and development is the result of life, and the life is the very same organism that is born, goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. It is the very same human that you are, and that very same human that I am.

I never said the foetus wasn't alive. I'm saying that a person can't exist without a brain. A person can be born without legs for example, and no one would say that they aren't a person. But a body without a brain is legally and medically recognised as dead.

To claim that the foetus (young one in Latin) is not potentially a human life, is a fundamental denial of the truth.

FYP

It's potentially a human life. And it's doesn't begin to be a person until a brain begins to appear.

It's killing insofar as it is taking away a human life, that should be entitled to the same liberties as you or I have.

And you can back this up with something other than religion?

I've explained why the question doesn't make sense at all. It's merely an arbitrary standard that you are using to fudge the fact that there is a human life in the womb irrespective of how young it is, that's what it is. Being less developed does not give one the liberty to kill. Ex-utero that would be abhorrent. There seems to be very little justification for why it should be permissible in-utero.

It's not fudging, it's based on the legal and medical understanding of what defines a person. No brain means that a person doesn't exist yet.

It's like the 1024 oranges scenario. I could pick anything that suggests to me that the foetus is less developed, I could pick anything that suggests to me that a three year old child is less developed, or even that my peers may be less developed than me. Yet that becomes ludicrous. I don't see why it is any less ludicrous than these arbitrary standards that people impose on the abortion question.

But it's not a question of development, it's about the brain. You really need to explain how a body minus brain is a person.

One could even put across this position as an atheist. It doesn't particularly matter what faith you are in this question. Personally, I'm a Christian and yes that does have some implications for how I see this topic, but I'm happy to go through it step by step without any reference to it.

Alright then. Explain how a person exists if a brain doesn't exist. That's the major problem I have with your stance.

philologos

No religion is required in this (although I do believe Christianity to be true, and atheism a falsehood that is something which can be explored later) Fundamentally we all have the right to life. I was granted it, you were granted it, and all others were granted it.

Personally, it is enough for me that the unborn child is biologically alive in the womb for me to defend it. It matters little to me as to what stage of development it is in. From conception to death, that is a single human life form. To claim that the foetus is dead is simply impossible. It isn't "potentially" a human life. It is a human life biologically. Dead things don't grow and develop, that's nonsensical. The same biologically entity that is conceived is the same biological entity that is born and ultimately which dies.

That's what is clear to us on a biological level. As for what meaning or anything that one attaches to that, that is irrelevant. Ultimately it is a human life, and ultimately that human life has fundamental rights, and there are severe ethical and human rights issues in destroying that life. The justification isn't good enough for me ever to be tolerant of abortion-by-choice.

It's too serious to mess around with. It's unnecessary to even entertain the idea of personhood. That's also highly arbitrary. I could claim that one isn't really a person until one has cycled up Mount Kilamanjaro on a unicycle while playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on a violin.

Ultimately, what matters is that human life matters. It is fundamentally wrong for someone to take someone elses life, in-utero, ex-utero and whatever else have you. There are huge gaping holes in pro-choice logic. I have more respect for those who come out and say that they condone killing rather than those who disingenuously fudge the issue of when life begins. The answer is that it begins in humans much the same as when it begins with other animals. That's conception.

stoneill

What she was saying in her speech was:
Is the Dail there to legislate for sin?

It was during the abortion debate, the main point made by those against having legalised abortion in Ireland is because it is a sin.
So the question being raised was as fornication causes unwanted pregnancy and it is a sin should we legislate for that too.

That's all.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

No religion is required in this (although I do believe Christianity to be true, and atheism a falsehood that is something which can be explored later) Fundamentally we all have the right to life. I was granted it, you were granted it, and all others were granted it.

Personally, it is enough for me that the unborn child is biologically alive in the womb for me to defend it. It matters little to me as to what stage of development it is in. From conception to death, that is a single human life form. To claim that the foetus is dead is simply impossible. It isn't "potentially" a human life. It is a human life biologically. Dead things don't grow and develop, that's nonsensical. The same biologically entity that is conceived is the same biological entity that is born and ultimately which dies.

That's what is clear to us on a biological level. As for what meaning or anything that one attaches to that, that is irrelevant. Ultimately it is a human life, and ultimately that human life has fundamental rights, and there are severe ethical and human rights issues in destroying that life. The justification isn't good enough for me ever to be tolerant of abortion-by-choice.

It's too serious to mess around with. It's unnecessary to even entertain the idea of personhood. That's also highly arbitrary. I could claim that one isn't really a person until one has cycled up Mount Kilamanjaro on a unicycle while playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on a violin.

Ultimately, what matters is that human life matters. It is fundamentally wrong for someone to take someone elses life, in-utero, ex-utero and whatever else have you. There are huge gaping holes in pro-choice logic. I have more respect for those who come out and say that they condone killing rather than those who disingenuously fudge the issue of when life begins. The answer is that it begins in humans much the same as when it begins with other animals. That's conception.

*sigh*

I really wish you wouldn't misrepresent what I've posted. I never said that a foetus was dead. I've actually repeatedly stated that this conversation is how can a person exist if no functioning brain exists.

You've repeatedly dodged answering this by diverting the discussion onto what stage of development the foetus is at. Or on to ex-utero murder.

If a brain doesn't exist, then consciousness never comes into being. the body is essentially an empty vessel.

I can understand it's difficult stuff to discuss, from either side of the fence. Not addressing questions that I've posed to you won't make it any easier.

philologos

koth: The point about a child being less or more developed, from my perspective has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It's a valid comparison to say that one could impose other arbitrary standards on when I consider X, Y, or Z to be alive. It is better to engage with the reality that there is a human life in the womb, irrespective of how much it has developed.

I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic by presenting this argument, and I think that's entirely valid unless you can convince me that the foetus (irrespective of development) is dead rather than alive.

Bringing up development, allows me to extend that logic. That's why I'm pointing you to what is actually true of the foetus - I.E - That it is a human life, and for that reason and that reason alone, I can empathise with it. I was there too, and I was given this liberty and I think all others should be given that liberty.

That's why I'm pro-life, simply put. The argument about how developed it is, to me is entirely irrelevant when it is manifest that there is a human life in the womb from the get go.

Pointing out how the question is flawed - is addressing the question, perhaps not in a way that you'd like but nonetheless that's what I'm doing.

shopaholic01

stoneill wrote: »

What she was saying in her speech was:
Is the Dail there to legislate for sin?

It was during the abortion debate, the main point made by those against having legalised abortion in Ireland is because it is a sin.
So the question being raised was as fornication causes unwanted pregnancy and it is a sin should we legislate for that too.

That's all.

So now we make sex illegal?????????

mikom

philologos wrote: »

koth: The point about a child being less or more developed, from my perspective has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It's a valid comparison to say that one could impose other arbitrary standards on when I consider X, Y, or Z to be alive. It is better to engage with the reality that there is a human life in the womb, irrespective of how much it has developed.


That's why I'm pro-life, simply put. The argument about how developed it is, to me is entirely irrelevant when it is manifest that there is a human life in the womb from the get go.

I hope you and your beliefs have deep pockets to pay the electricity bills for all the braindead on lifesupports Ad infinitum.

Pherekydes

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately it is a human life, and ultimately that human life has fundamental rights, and there are severe ethical and human rights issues in destroying that life.

So, would you be against harvesting of organs from brain dead patients, who are kept alive artificially?

K-9

philologos wrote: »

koth: The point about a child being less or more developed, from my perspective has no bearing on whether or not it is alive. It's a valid comparison to say that one could impose other arbitrary standards on when I consider X, Y, or Z to be alive. It is better to engage with the reality that there is a human life in the womb, irrespective of how much it has developed.

I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic by presenting this argument, and I think that's entirely valid unless you can convince me that the foetus (irrespective of development) is dead rather than alive.

Bringing up development, allows me to extend that logic. That's why I'm pointing you to what is actually true of the foetus - I.E - That it is a human life, and for that reason and that reason alone, I can empathise with it. I was there too, and I was given this liberty and I think all others should be given that liberty.

That's why I'm pro-life, simply put. The argument about how developed it is, to me is entirely irrelevant when it is manifest that there is a human life in the womb from the get go.

Pointing out how the question is flawed - is addressing the question, perhaps not in a way that you'd like but nonetheless that's what I'm doing.

I really don't get this logic. Koth is asking you a specific question, the foetus has no brain, is either going to miscarry or die within hours of death.

Basically you are actually pro death in this case because the foetus is medically dead. It's taking an ideal to absurd lengths, "I know this foetus is going to die but we must let it live because we must defend life at all costs." Religions and moral view points should take account of the medical knowledge in this case. It is cruel to put a mother through that birth knowing the baby has no future whatsoever, a life of a couple of hours at most.

Really, when you take an ideal to such extreme, avoidable and inhumane lengths, it's extremism and a height of selfishness.

philologos

K-9 - I read through your post, and I realised that you've misunderstood my argument.

I am talking about abortion-by-choice. There are some cases where abortion is a medical necessity. As a result of my pro-life view I would argue that saving one life is better than losing two in such situations.

You've misunderstood how the argument has changed. It moved to an argument over pro-choice / pro-life in the last few pages. Please read back over it before making assumptions about my post.

koth's argument wasn't about a child being born without a brain. But about the early foetus not having one. That to me is irrelevant. All he's saying is because it's a younger life we have the right to kill. I think you've misunderstood his POV. If I have I'll happily accept it. His argument was never about a foetus which would definely miscarry.

Delirium

Thank spongebob, some people seem to be able to follow what I'm asking.

I'm saying that because a brain doesn't exist, a person can't exist. This a question across the stages of life, not just in the womb. I'm not sayint that the foetus is going to die in this discussion, just that it hasn't arrived at the stage where a brain is created.

You're saying that everyone who was declared brain dead isn't dead, i.e. the unique person has ceased to exist within the body. The body itself isn't dead as it can be kept alive using life support.

I'm trying to understand how can you kill a "person" if brain exists?

mikom

K-9 wrote: »

Basically you are actually pro death in this case because the foetus is medically dead. It's taking an ideal to absurd lengths, "I know this foetus is going to die but we must let it live because we must defend life at all costs." Religions and moral view points should take account of the medical knowledge in this case. It is cruel to put a mother through that birth knowing the baby has no future whatsoever, a life of a couple of hours at most.

Really, when you take an ideal to such extreme, avoidable and inhumane lengths, it's extremism and a height of selfishness.

It's the mothers cross to bear...........

K-9

philologos wrote: »

K-9 - I read through your post, and I realised that you've misunderstood my argument.

I am talking about abortion-by-choice. There are some cases where abortion is a medical necessity. As a result of my pro-life view I would argue that saving one life is better than losing two in such situations.

You've misunderstood how the argument has changed. It moved to an argument over pro-choice / pro-life in the last few pages. Please read back over it before making assumptions about my post.

koth's argument wasn't about a child being born without a brain. But about the early foetus not having one. That to me is irrelevant. All he's saying is because it's a younger life we have the right to kill. I think you've misunderstood his POV. If I have I'll happily accept it. His argument was never about a foetus which would definely miscarry.

Fair enough. My post was more aimed at the recent high profile cases raised in the Times and the Dail. Would you see those cases as abortion by choice? The saving a life view is redundant in these cases.

philologos

Medical emergencies are an entirely different kettle of fish to abortion-by-choice. Medical emergencies save lives, abortion-by-choice destroys lives.

I'm sorry if I was a little bit rash earlier, but I do find it frustrating when people misinterpret my posts and draw conclusions about me on that basis.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Thank spongebob, some people seem to be able to follow what I'm asking.

I'm saying that because a brain doesn't exist, a person can't exist. This a question across the stages of life, not just in the womb. I'm not sayint that the foetus is going to die in this discussion, just that it hasn't arrived at the stage where a brain is created.

You're saying that everyone who was declared brain dead isn't dead, i.e. the unique person has ceased to exist within the body. The body itself isn't dead as it can be kept alive using life support.

I'm trying to understand how can you kill a "person" if brain exists?

I'm trying to say that the personhood question is irrelevant, insofar as the same biological life that is born, goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death is ultimately the same life that was conceived and that develops in the womb.

I don't distinguish because it's fact that the life is one and the same. I don't support destroying that life precisely because it is a human life, at an early stage. That's all. It's an argument based on development, and that logic could be applied ex-utero.

The problem for me is that the logic doesn't hold up. There isn't a justification for death in cases of abortion-by-choice.