Termination of Preganancy Bill

BluntGuy

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Say what you want but life starts at conception. Ending life is murder.

In your opinion.

And this is essentially exactly what Tragedy is saying, everyone has their own view on this. There isn't a standard accepted scientific view as to when human life begins, everyone has their own subjective view on it. Is it right that one can force their own subjective view on others?

Atomicjuicer

BluntGuy wrote: »

In your opinion.

And this is essentially exactly what Tragedy is saying, everyone has their own view on this. There isn't a standard accepted scientific view as to when human life begins, everyone has their own subjective view on it. Is it right that one can force their own subjective view on others?

Sorry but my opinion has science behind it. Deciding when you think life has developed far enough for you to decide that it is life is subjective.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

spank_inferno

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Sorry but my opinion has science behind it. Deciding when you think life has developed far enough for you to decide that it is life is subjective.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

Hmmm..... again that is your opinion.

A conceived cluster of cells will not become a living being if it does not implant within the womb.

Is it not more logical to say that life starts at implantation??

There is many a fertilised egg that does not implant and is just passed at the women’s next period.

seamus

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

[Citation Needed]

Depends on your definition of "life". If we were define it in terms of how we usually look at life - an autonomous biological organism capable of feeding & reproducing - then I think you'll find that there's nothing "logical" at all about using conception since the organism at that stage is entirely parasitic on its mother. It's not until 30-ish weeks that the organism could survive on its on without the mother's biological processes.

Even then of course, the child is utterly dependent on another for food and care for at least a year.

So I think you'll find that there's no logical definition for the "start of life", because that's what the entire bloody debate is about. If it was as simple and set as you say, why are we discussing anything?

I would strongly doubt the credibility and expertise of any scientist who "declared" conception to be the start of life.

Tragedy

BluntGuy wrote: »

In your opinion.

And this is essentially exactly what Tragedy is saying, everyone has their own view on this. There isn't a standard accepted scientific view as to when human life begins, everyone has their own subjective view on it. Is it right that one can force their own subjective view on others?

Exactly. For example, drink driving laws. There is plenty of scientific/statistical proof that banning drink driving, despite the negative effect it would potentially have on Pubs, rural communities etc, would provide a measurable benefit to society at large.
While morally, one can argue drink driving is wrong, it was outlawed for logical and verifiable reasons and not for purely moral ones.
Abortion however, seems to usually comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

t's not until 30-ish weeks that the organism could survive on its on without the mother's biological processes.

The limit of viability is considered 24 weeks these days, due to advances in neonatal intensive care.

I do agree with you that the beginning of life is not an instantaneous, black and white affair.

When you consider what it is that makes the fundamental difference between a collection of cells (which we could all be described as), and life possesing human consciousness, it comes down to the central nervous system. I would consider a defining event in the formation of the CNS to be the closing of the anterior neuropore, thus forming the primordial brain.

This is just my own opinion obviously, but it strikes me as a reasonable definition as it would exclude the anencephalic foetus.

BluntGuy

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Sorry but my opinion has science behind it.

A lot of people could claim this about their opinions. But please explain.

Deciding when you think life has developed far enough for you to decide that it is life is subjective.

Well if you want to re-phrase it like that to fit your moral view, fair enough.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that conception is the most logical definition of the start of life.

Explain this.

seamus

It's also worth pointing out (heading it off at the pass, so to speak) that abortion is nothing new. Although it's considered a purely medical process now and "new", abortion being specifically illegal is a fairly new social construct (in the grand scheme). For most of human history, its status has been changed, at some points being considered a legitimate form of birth control, at others being considered an offence against the man, or an offence against God.
In many cultures, a child may not have even been considered "human" for months. In ancient Greece for example, postnatal "abortions" were acceptable if the father wa sunhappy with the newborn child. Newborns would also often be "exposed" (left outside) overnight as a form of ensuring that children were strong - if a child dies, it is the will of the Gods.

My main point being that although we can take the abortion argument at a much more scientific level now, it's a long-long-long-running debate which has never had any definitive declaration made.

RDM_83 again

Tragedy wrote: »

And? I was quoting her opinion not the constitution, with her opinion being because she finds it morally unacceptable, no-one else should be able to do it. You still have yet to point out the logical error in what I posted and are still maundering on about the constitution when I never argued constitutionality.

I referenced the constitution as it was voted on by the people of Ireland at that time* and appears to be broadly in line with her opinion, we have our choices restriced by peoples opinions all the time but it only seems to be in the abortion debate that it draws such ire, an example, the age of consent in Ireland is 17 in spain is 13, is it valid for me to aggressively attack posters that support Irelands age of consent as

Tragedy wrote: »

I find that kind of closed-minded viewpoint incredibly offensive.

* if you read my posts you will see I say "it may need an update" and "the historic position of the majority of citizens"

Tragedy wrote: »

And? You essentially claimed that there was a majority against Abortion in any sense and argued 'tyranny of the masses' when there is zero evidence of what the masses actually currently want/believe.

Show me where I state their is a majority opposed in any sense, that is why I quoted Redz in my previous post as she seems to consider abortion may be justified in certain cases.

If we look at the opinion polls we that the majority opinion is still that access to abortion should be extremely limited (the last poll i see only polled 18-35 year olds so it isn't useful), also these opinion polls don't really matter, what matters is that amendment 8 is still in force and amendments 12 and 25 were rejected

Tragedy wrote: »

Who chooses to go to the doctors to get their approval? Technically, that's a choice isn't it? Who chooses to go the abortion clinic on the day? Technically, I believe that is also a choice? Should i technically go on about more technical choices?

Yes you have a choice to try and access an abortion, however your ability to obtain an abortion still relies on the opinion of two MD's

Tragedy wrote: »

Now, can we drop this sideline that was started by you trying to be superior by posting and move on? Unfortunately I was forced to study political theory in first year of University, so your attempt was sadly misplaced - I'm sadly well aware of what it is. If you want to argue tyranny of the masses, libertarianism and whatnot, maybe do it in another thread and without being condescending?

I'm the one who is trying to be superior in my posting? read your post in reply to Redz, shouty caps, deeply offensive etc not exactly to notch politics posting!. See my above points about the opinion polls and historic voting too why the tyranny of the majority point is still applicable.

Tragedy wrote: »

Exactly. For example, drink driving laws. There is plenty of scientific/statistical proof that banning drink driving, despite the negative effect it would potentially have on Pubs, rural communities etc, would provide a measurable benefit to society at large.
While morally, one can argue drink driving is wrong, it was outlawed for logical and verifiable reasons and not for purely moral ones.
Abortion however, seems to usually comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms.

The reason there is a debate is because neither side has a completely scientific basis to it, its your opinion that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child, it could be my opinion following the arguments set out in this interesting paper here, that post birth abortion is justifiable, is there a non-moral argument against this or would you simply restrain my individual freedom

Tragedy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I referenced the constitution as it was voted on by the people of Ireland at that time* and appears to be broadly in line with her opinion,

So you brought it up for no reason? I don't believe the fact that it was voted in by a tiny majority 80 years ago particularly relevant, especially when no-one else has mentioned it.

we have our choices restriced by peoples opinions all the time but it only seems to be in the abortion debate that it draws such ire, an example, the age of consent in Ireland is 17 in spain is 13, is it valid for me to aggressively attack posters that support Irelands age of consent as

Mayhap because there is a clear society wide consensus on the age of consent? Just as there is a clear society wide consensus on it being unjust that boys can be prosecuted for having sex with a girl under 17 but not vice versa?
A completely irrelevant example that doesn't in any way back up your point? Excellent!

Show me where I state their is a majority opposed in any sense, that is why I quoted Redz in my previous post as she seems to consider abortion may be justified in certain cases.

"I was saying that it was not just her opinion that restricts the right to abort rather the historic position of the majority of the citizens of this state"
And the whole tyranny of the masses angle kinda presupposes that the masses is agreed on it...

If we look at the opinion polls we that the majority opinion is still that access to abortion should be extremely limited (the last poll i see only polled 18-35 year olds so it isn't useful), also these opinion polls don't really matter, what matters is that amendment 8 is still in force and amendments 12 and 25 were rejected

I don't recall stating otherwise, so why are you talking to me as if I did?

Yes you have a choice to try and access an abortion, however your ability to obtain an abortion still relies on the opinion of two MD's

So why are you waffling about choice?

I'm the one who is trying to be superior in my posting?

I'm sorry, I might have mistaken your "Oh you obviously couldn't think of it in those terms while being aggressive and combative" as being helpful and positive :rolleyes:

read your post in reply to Redz, shouty caps, deeply offensive etc not exactly to notch politics posting!.

The only shouty caps is a simpsons quote. Would you like to apologise now? What was deeply offensive about my post? I stated that I found her closed minded viewpoint offensive. Is that deeply offensive?

See my above points about the opinion polls and historic voting too why the tyranny of the majority point is still applicable.

Except it isn't in any way as I've already shown. Do keep stating it is though.

The reason there is a debate is because neither side has a completely scientific basis to it, its your opinion that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child, it could be my opinion following the arguments set out in this interesting paper here, that post birth abortion is justifiable, is there a non-moral argument against this or would you simply restrain my individual freedom

I don't recall stating that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child.

RDM_83 again

hmmmm 1983 isn't 80 years ago.

Show me how you refuted my tyranny of the majority point? oh right you're not able to find an opinion poll that states that the majority of people are not opposed to abortion apart from in limited circumstances are you? therefore the majority opinion is being imposed on a minority opinion.

I consider it poor form to accuse another poster of being close minded if they have a different opinion to me.

Tragedy wrote: »

I don't recall stating that a fetus is less of an individual than a new born child.

No but you are stating that "comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms", if you do believe that a fetus is an individual isn't an abortion a most severe impact on that individual (the fetus).
If you don't believe a fetus is an individual tell me how you would refute the arguments laid out in the paper quoted without using a moral argument?

Tragedy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

hmmmm 1983 isn't 80 years ago.

Eight Amendment doesn't preclude abortions for medical reasons. Redz argues that abortions for medical reasons shouldn't be allowed. You're using the Eight Amendment to back up Redz point of view. What?
I was referring to the original constitution.

Show me how you refuted my tyranny of the majority point? oh right you're not able to find an opinion poll that states that the majority of people are not opposed to abortion apart from in limited circumstances are you? therefore the majority opinion is being imposed on a minority opinion.

Yet again you're arguing against something I never posted. Redz post was largely about aborting fetuses for medical reasons (e.g. anencephaly). I never talked about abortion in any other cases, even though you've now posted replies to me several times as if I had. Please cop on and stop making things up.

Opinion polls suggest that a majority supports abortion where
A)The mother's life is in danger
or
B)Where the baby cannot survive outside the womb
or
C)The baby is a result of rape.

Redz is against abortion in B and C and will no doubt downplay A as much as possible (as she downplayed anencephaly).

So your tyranny of the majority is now tyranny of the minority, but instead of accepting it you make up arguments by me?

I consider it poor form to accuse another poster of being close minded if they have a different opinion to me.

Where have I posted an opinion on abortion?

No but you are stating that "comes down to moralistic arguments for restraint of other individuals freedoms", if you do believe that a fetus is an individual isn't an abortion a most severe impact on that individual (the fetus).
If you don't believe a fetus is an individual tell me how you would refute the arguments laid out in the paper quoted without using a moral argument?

Why are you trying to put further words into my mouth?

The most important part of that quote is moralistic arguments. I have no problem with logical and scientific arguments.

carveone

I'd be of the opinion that the maternity hospitals would have more experience than any of us would have and it was their opinion (in 2002) that abortion would be acceptable in certain cases, including encephalopathy.

However, one could argue this topic for the next 20 years, we could have another referendum on the issue, nicely sidetracking the entire population from the topic of banks/charges/tax/economy/corruption (it's just like 1983!), and it would make absolutely no difference. What's the point in having bans
on abortion in certain circumstances and allowances in others when the Dail refuses to legislate for any of them anyway, even in the face of an ECHR decison to do so.

It's not much to ask is it? To do what the people asked you to do? Even just to clarify the situation. But, no, instead Fianna Fail have to have another referendum (2002) to have another go at the 12th amendment (suicide not adequate threat to woman's life). WTF was the point of that when they hadn't done anything since 1992? I wasn't in the country at the time but I believe Ahern said a No vote would introduce "abortion on demand". There was a No vote. Where's the abortion on demand. They did the same thing last week - a vote on the private member's bill would introduce "abortion on demand"...

In 1992 the people decided that the apparant ability of the government to ignore basic human rights and European law and actually intern children (this is as seperate from the substantive issue - it was a seperate referendum) would not stand. I grimly imagine telling youngsters that I voted in a referendum to say "I'm allowed leave the country". The right to travel and the right to information referendums were passed and the restrictions on abortion were not (ie: the people wished for the Supreme Court decision to stand).

But still the government essentially ignored those wishes. The Supreme Court decision was never legislated for and the information amendment was legislated for in an underhanded manner. (In my opinion) This essentially means that doctors are risking imprisonment if they bring up the subject
of abortion first, even in cases like encephalopathy where that doctor is fullfilling his medical duty by stating the options available.

I firmly believe that if given a free hand, the "Official Free lifers" would wind us back to the 1950s. To avoid getting flamed I hurry to state what I mean by "Official Free life" movement - in Ireland I mean primarily that of
Spuc/Youth defence/Coir. Their position only appears to be Pro Life but they are way way more than that. They have always had the ultra Catholic point of view that abortion should be illegal no matter what, also contraception should be illegal, women should have a duty to bear children, you shall not be allowed leave the country if pregnant etc etc. Don't forget that Spuc sued the Irish Family Planning association. And won! These are the guys shouting "it'll be abortion on demand".

Whew. Too much ranting for one day...

Ellis Dee

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Abortions for some, small American flags for everybody else.

There really is no agreement to e reached in the abortion debate, although having to travel to Belfast is about the only impediment to getting an abortion.

Agreed, but unless they've changed things up there lately, I think it's still not easy to get an abortion, so most women travel to England.:)

Some older Boardsies may recall the 1970s, when contraceptives were still banned in the Republic. Then, with AIDS and the gradual dawning of awareness even here that we were living in the 20th century, the Government finally gave in to growing pressure and changed the law to make contraception available to married couples on prescription. :rolleyes: Charles J. Haughey famously described it as "an Irish solution to an Irish problem".

Fortunately for Irish women who believe an abortion is their preferred option, there is also "an Irish solution to the Irish problem of abortion". The name of that solution is England, and both geography and inexpensive air fares mean that almost all women can avail themselves of it if they need to.

A few years ago I financed a trip to London for a young woman of my acquaintance, a student coming up to her final exams, who found herself pregnant and broke. She didn't dare ask her ultra-Catholic parents for help and some of her friends eventually came to me because I was the only one anywhere near those circles who had money.

When she went to London, she was told it was too soon for the abortion and that she would have to return in three weeks' time. Out with the chequebook again! A simple test, unavailable in the Republic, would have revealed that and she would not have had to make the first trip to London.:(

The lack of legislation, which should have been enacted nearly 20 years ago, does not and can not prevent women having terminations abroad, but it gives the anti-choice crowd a consolation prize by placing unnecessary and pointless impediments in the way of women who want to exercise their right to travel abroad for a service that is legal in their country of destination. It's no more than a bit of harassment, the equivalent of mischief like well-poisoning actually, but does mean hardship for some women and it is time to end it.:D

seamus

carveone wrote: »

But, no, instead Fianna Fail have to have another referendum (2002) to have another go at the 12th amendment (suicide not adequate threat to woman's life). WTF was the point of that when they hadn't done anything since 1992?

The 2002 referendum was cynical move by FF at the time to galvanise their support base for the general election that was to be held two months later.
Bertie astutely recognised that by proposing additional restrictions on abortion, he could secure the support of the more hardline and religious groups within Irish society, but without massively displacing the less hardline.

The opposition parties would take the opposite stance, opposing the restrictions on abortion and damaging their ratings within the hardline groups. His argument being that, "If you vote these guys in, they'll legalise abortions for all". FG were annihilated in that election.

The effect on FF's rating for those people who aren't hardline on abortion would be far less because they don't see abortion as a major election issue.

It was win/win for Bertie at the time, and after FF were re-elected, the issue was promptly dropped and there was no attempt to legislate despite the electorate having made themselves pretty clear.

(Sorry, I know that's a bit off-topic, just trying to explain in the context of the Bill in the thread title as to how this issue has been used politically in the past)

RDM_83 again

Perhaps I miss read your point original point and Redz one, I read your post as being outraged by the viewpoint of another allowing restricting ones reproductive rights due to moral opinion in any case? if you did write this post at being outraged by views such as Redz restricting the right to abortion in cases B and C n your previous post as would be expected to be from various opinion polls and amendment referendums i I apologize. If however you wrote the spirit of the former I believe my points still stand.

I get your point about moralistic arguments, however the fact that you couldn't be bothered to attempt to reply to the paper I linked and also ignored my question on how if you consider a fetus an individual it has its individual rights impacted by abortion leads me to consider that you have not considered the impact of removing the ability to make moral judgements would have. If you have please give your opinion on it using a logical and scientific argument (its an interesting read anyway that challenges our preconceptions)

p1akuw47h5r3it

goose2005 wrote: »

But that argument makes no sense; people who are anti-abortion believe that unborn foetuses are human beings and are thus entitled to the same protection under law as any other human beings; one may as well say "if you are against murder, don't kill anyone, but don't question other people's right to kill those who bother them." I don't believe an unborn foetus can be considered a proper human, at least not in the early months, but if I did, of course I would see abortion as murder.

.

And some people don't. The best way to accommodate both sides is to legalize abortion so those who want/need abortions can have them and those who don't need/want don't have too.

With regards the murder comment. I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of people believe murder of other humans is wrong. This isn't the case with regards to abortion as not everyone regards a fetus as a human being yet, therefore this point doesn't really stand.

carveone

seamus wrote: »

The 2002 referendum was cynical move by FF at the time to galvanise their support base for the general election that was to be held two months later.

I figured as much but as soon as I mentioned the X Case I always get indignant and sidetrack my own postings. Plus I went off topic too! I was 21 at the time so I remember it pretty poignantly.

the Government finally gave in to growing pressure and changed the law to make contraception available to married couples on prescription.

That was by 1980 I believe and promptly resulted in a disinformation campaign by Spuc and others to "prove" that condoms would not prevent HIV transmission. Which perhaps was likely more effective in the country.

Still, contraception was effectively illegal because of the difficulty of getting a prescription from mostly Catholic doctors. It was (in my opinion) Virgin Megastore who really pushed the whole thing over the edge and what with the X Case and the start of the Church scandals and Brendan Smyth etc etc, people were just in no mood for the nonsense anymore. It all just sounds ridiculous now but I bet in corners of the country women are still being denied the pill because their doctor says so.

And I'm way off topic again...

unnecessary and pointless impediments in the way of women who want to exercise their right to travel abroad for a service

That's the bit I have a problem with and evidently the ECHR too. The whole thing seems set up to cause harrassment. And for what purpose given that the country has decided on this twice? The government know that they cannot stop people leaving the country, they know that even to try would result in a catastrophic PR nightmare. So they want to sit on the status quo and hope the whole thing goes away?

I was slightly surprised at the lack of hysteria that has marked previous abortion discussions. In previous years the loons from both sides would crawl out of the woodwork and start shouting hysterically. I guess they didn't dare try that this time - is that a sign of a society that has grown to recognise the world is one of colour instead of black and white? I'm even more surprised at being on Clare Daly's side for once

goose2005

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And some people don't. The best way to accommodate both sides is to legalize abortion so those who want/need abortions can have them and those who don't need/want don't have too.

With regards the murder comment. I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of people believe murder of other humans is wrong. This isn't the case with regards to abortion as not everyone regards a fetus as a human being yet, therefore this point doesn't really stand.

But if you were one of the people who regarded fetuses as human beings, you couldn't surely just allow them to be killed?

p1akuw47h5r3it

goose2005 wrote: »

But if you were one of the people who regarded fetuses as human beings, you couldn't surely just allow them to be killed?

I'd respect other peoples beliefs that they have a different views to me and except the compromise that if they want to have abortions they should be able to, but that I personally will not.

Atomicjuicer

seamus wrote: »

[Citation Needed]

Depends on your definition of "life". If we were define it in terms of how we usually look at life - an autonomous biological organism capable of feeding & reproducing - then I think you'll find that there's nothing "logical" at all about using conception since the organism at that stage is entirely parasitic on its mother. It's not until 30-ish weeks that the organism could survive on its on without the mother's biological processes.

Even then of course, the child is utterly dependent on another for food and care for at least a year.

So I think you'll find that there's no logical definition for the "start of life", because that's what the entire bloody debate is about. If it was as simple and set as you say, why are we discussing anything?

I would strongly doubt the credibility and expertise of any scientist who "declared" conception to be the start of life.

Here's your citation:

In The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, (Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. (Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003), 90.) which is a standard teaching text on prenatal development, the authors note that obstetricians date pregnancies in one of two ways – either "beginning from the first day of the last normal menstrual period (LNMP)," or "at fertilization or conception, about two weeks after LNMP." Note the interchangeable use of fertilization and conception, which is repeated again in a summary bullet on the same page. No mention is made of anyone aging an embryo from the time of implantation.

In the index of Human Embryology & Teratology, the entry for "conception" takes you to a page describing the process of fertilization. On the next page, it says that, "just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." Alexander Tsiaras, who served as the Chief of Scientific Visualizatiion in Yale University's Department of Medicine, did a TED lecture in 2010 which included a sample of the video he created called, From Conception to Birth. Not surprisingly, the animated sequence begins with fertilization, not implantation.

Finally, Merriam-Webster, MedicineNet, American Heritage, MediLexicon, Dictionary.com and WebMD all define conception as the union of sperm and egg.

seamus

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Here's your citation:

Eh, no. I asked you for a citation that scientists called conception the start of life. Not what they consider the start of pregnancy.

Atomicjuicer

seamus wrote: »

Eh, no. I asked you for a citation that scientists called conception the start of life. Not what they consider the start of pregnancy.

What's the title of this thread?

seamus

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

What's the title of this thread?

That's irrelevant. You said that any scientist worth their salt would consider conception to the be the logical definition of the start of life. You have failed to back up this opinion with any facts.

Atomicjuicer

seamus wrote: »

That's irrelevant. You said that any scientist worth their salt would consider conception to the be the logical definition of the start of life. You have failed to back up this opinion with any facts.

The title of the thread is irrelevant?

I'm the one bringing facts to the table - and speaking of life - I've to get back to mine.

goldenhoarde

nobody seems to care here about the Irish women who get told the dreaded words "incompatible with life" every year! Its all about "my" views not about be supportive and caring!

what is being proposed is not abortion on demand, rather medical terminations in cases that require them. Do we all here honestly think that the 100 or so irish couples (we all have heard them on the radio/tv) that end up in liverpool each year because their pregancies are "incompatible with life". Once there ther are re-assessed to be sure that the irish doctors were correct before anything happens so we have a fail safe to make sure that the descison is the correct one.

So less of the use of the term abortion as these women would have given anything to be able to have had full term pregancies. The irish solution let someone else deal with it. I for one feel sick that we cannot provide these women with care and suppport at home.

Stark

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

The title of the thread is irrelevant?

It is when it doesn't relate to the statement you made and were asked to back up.