Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Popped in to see if I missed anything... let's see Jimi and GU said something sneering so no, missed nothing at all of interest.

antiskeptic

UDP wrote: »

A fetus is not a person because it relies on its host to live.

The proof or failing that, argument, of which is...?

Not allowing an abortion If a mother is suicidal because she is pregnant for whatever reason then you are stampeding on her rights. You are forcing her to put her life at risk and go through physical and mental pain for something she does not want to do.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The pregnancy is a happening fact without anyone doing anything at all.

The best outcome always is that everyone lives and has a happy life but unfortunately we do not live in such a black and white world.

I agree. Which doesn't dispel differing shades of grey.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

No.

The bar for a "thanks" around here is depressingly low.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Go on. Given you've plucked criteria-for-what-defines-life out of the air.

*drums fingers *

It's a criteria that makes sense to me. I'd rather save the woman than the unknown factor.

Now, would you to answer my question from here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82126808&postcount=3104

Bannasidhe

THE Government has abandoned an extra Dail sitting day planned for an abortion debate because there are not enough TDs willing to fill speaking time.

The Dail usually only sits on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, but a five-day sitting was planned for next week to deal with the Budget and abortion.

Monday was to be entirely given over to a debate on the abortion, with the Coalition committed to making a decision on how to deal with the issue before Christmas.

But government chief whip Paul Kehoe said the Dail will now resume on Tuesday morning at 11am, and not Monday morning as had been initially planned.

Mr Kehoe said there had been numerous private members' motions on abortion in recent weeks and months, and TDs did not want to repeat their positions again.

It is also understood a number of deputies want to wait until after the government decision before speaking on the issue. Mr Kehoe said any government TD who wanted to speak had been allocated time, and claimed few members of the opposition had contributed to the debate so far.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dail-abortion-debate-axed-over-lack-of-speakers-3319249.html

For some reason I have this stuck in my head - can't imagine why ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

aloyisious

@antiskeptic: Ref your quote "Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The pregnancy is a happening fact without anyone doing anything at all", is surely insisting that one's point of view "that abortions must not be allowed in the Irish Republic under the Constitution or by Statute law" mean's (by default or end result) that any pregnant Woman or Girl resident in the republic wishing to have her pregnancy aborted here is denied a legal abortion here.

For all intents, it's person A (who has no involvement in person B's life) telling person B "I don't agree with your choice, so you are not going to be allowed have that choice here". The use of the word forcing can be swopped for the word compelling, and mean the same thing "if you want to abort YOUR pregnancy, you will have to travel abroad". That's rule by dictat, a slippery path, and a keeping-up with an Irish solution to an Irish problem "go abroad", a total bare-faced denial that a problem existed for person B and others in her life, a lie.

Should abortion be allowed here by law in the republic, it would still be a matter of choice, and person B's choice does not have a harmful rebound effect on person A.

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

@antiskeptic: Ref your quote "Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The pregnancy is a happening fact without anyone doing anything at all", is surely insisting that one's point of view "that abortions must not be allowed in the Irish Republic under the Constitution or by Statute law" mean's (by default or end result) that any pregnant Woman or Girl resident in the republic wishing to have her pregnancy aborted here is denied a legal abortion here.

I was objecting to the choice of langugage. There is a difference between forcing something to happen and not preventing something happening.

For all intents, it's person A (who has no involvement in person B's life) telling person B "I don't agree with your choice, so you are not going to be allowed have that choice here". The use of the word forcing can be swopped for the word compelling, and mean the same thing "if you want to abort YOUR pregnancy, you will have to travel abroad". That's rule by dictat, a slippery path, and a keeping-up with an Irish solution to an Irish problem "go abroad", a total bare-faced denial that a problem existed for person B and others in her life, a lie.

Should abortion be allowed here by law in the republic, it would still be a matter of choice, and person B's choice does not have a harmful rebound effect on person A.

There is no mention made of person C. Person A very often steps in front of person B to protect person C. It's only by dispensing with person C altogether that your argument holds true. Which might be fine for you, but not or me. And so your argument falters before me.

It's your worldview which determines whether person C exists or not, and since worldviews themselves can't appeal to any absolute (in the sense of being agreed upon by all) justification, discussion becomes fruitless

Wbich was the point I was originally trying to make.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

It's a criteria that makes sense to me. I'd rather save the woman than the unknown factor.

And my criteria make sense to me. Equally plucked from the air. And so we have stalemate.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was objecting to the choice of langugage. There is a difference between forcing something to happen and not preventing something happening.




There is no mention made of person C. Person A very often steps in front of person B to protect person C. It's only by dispensing with person C altogether that your argument holds true. Which might be fine for you, but not or me. And so your argument falters before me.

It's your worldview which determines whether person C exists or not, and since worldviews themselves can't appeal to any absolute (in the sense of being agreed upon by all) justification, discussion becomes fruitless

Wbich was the point I was originally trying to make.

John Waters - Is that you?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was objecting to the choice of langugage. There is a difference between forcing something to happen and not preventing something happening.

So person B is forced to have sex by a rapist and becomes pregnant. Person A objects to abortion and lobbies Person D to prevent person B from having the abortion they desire thereby ensuring Person B has no choice in determining her future as Person A had decided that In Potentia Person C has greater rights.

Seems like Person B gets no choice or say in the matter whatsoever and is thereby forced/compelled to continue with a pregnancy which was forced upon her against her wishes.

There is no mention made of person C. Person A very often steps in front of person B to protect person C. It's only by dispensing with person C altogether that your argument holds true. Which might be fine for you, but not or me. And so your argument falters before me.

It's your worldview which determines whether person C exists or not, and since worldviews themselves can't appeal to any absolute (in the sense of being agreed upon by all) justification, discussion becomes fruitless

Wbich was the point I was originally trying to make.

'Person' C does not exist except in potentia (in posse) but not in actuality (in esse) while Person B most certainly does exist in esse as a human being with rights of self-determination -Rights which are being denied to suit Person A's agenda.

See - I can be needless wordy too.

You don't agree with abortion - that's fine. Don't have one and we all promise we won't force you to have one (though I doubt if that will ever be an issue for you as I don't think you have a womb). Stop trying to force your desires on others.

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The pregnancy is a happening fact without anyone doing anything at all.

Right. So should that be a general principle in medicine? "What's happening to you is a natural event, therefore we have no moral obligation to treat you".

Bannasidhe

Stark wrote: »

Right. So should that be a general principle in medicine? "What's happening to you is a natural event, therefore we have no moral obligation to treat you".

Crushed in a car crash? - quick call the 'support services' not the medics. With 'help' one can learn to accept what happened and your injuries will 'resolve' themselves. But at the end of the day what happened happened and do you really need your legs? People live fulfilling lives without legs so stop whinging that timely medical intervention would have saved them. If God had wanted you to keep your legs he wouldn't have let them be crushed now would he.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

And my criteria make sense to me. Equally plucked from the air. And so we have stalemate.

There may be a stalemate in your mind but the fact is that the Irish people have voted on this and the supreme court has ruled on it. It just needs to be legislated for.

There's no stalemate.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

My view is that both the mother and the child are persons. And that abortion stampedes over one persons rights whereas support only partially stampedes over the others. Since there is less stampeding over rights in the second option, that's the best option. Which of course only makes sense when you consider mother and child persons. You view makes sense where the child isn't considered a person.

What does it mean to be a "person" though? We already recognise distinctions between different levels of personhood, legally and otherwise. For example, a child has fewer rights than someone over 18, and someone who is mentally ill can have their rights constrained when they are committed. A fully grown adult who ends up in a persistent vegetative state after an accident is not a person in the same way they were before their accident.

Personally, I would be prepared to turn off the life support machine of a friend or relative who was in such a vegetative state. They have no awareness, no consciousness as far as can be determined, and IMO anyway, no "life" to speak of. In the same way I would have no problem destroying unused embryos following IVF - it really is just a bunch of cells at that point, with no mental state at all.

A fetus is not a person the same way the mother is. If the brain is only partly developed and there is no real awareness, I can't see how it makes sense to consider such a fetus to be anything more than a potential person.

JimiTime

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suppose I do find it a bit of surprise. I'm not saying I'd be right in having such an expectation. But, just being honest, I would have thought that an absence of belief in a religion would be accompanied by a tendency to question other things, and a reluctance to accept statements at face value. So, yes, I am surprised to be wrong.

On the other hand, it's always a delight to be surprised.

Actually, now that you mention it, I was surprised when I seen it for the first time too. One tends to on face value, believe what a person says about themselves until shown otherwise (within reason of course). I suppose, like many an atheist will tell you, it really is just about believing there are no gods and the like. Reasonableness etc has nothing to do with it.

Sierra 117

There's certainly never any capacity for reason in what you post, Jimi. Just snide remarks.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose, like many an atheist will tell you, it really is just about believing there are no gods and the like. Reasonableness etc has nothing to do with it.

Well, there are discussions that can be had about reason and it's limits, and even consequences that follow from an atheist outlook. They're just not be had here.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, there are discussions that can be had about reason and it's limits, and even consequences that follow from an atheist outlook. They're just not be had here.

Such a shame yourself and Jimi are forced in here at gunpoint isn't it.


Oh wait....

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Such a shame yourself and Jimi are forced in here at gunpoint isn't it.


Oh wait....

Well, I can't say I feel any shame. And I can't say I got nothing out of the experience.

I'd probably finish by saying "The Horror. The Horror.", but that would give far too much solemnity to the place. So I'll just suggest you don't operate any heavy machinery while intoxicated.

mikhail

lazygal wrote: »

...
-An abnormal foetal position in the final trimester, which meant I was at a high risk of serious damage to baby and me if I went into labour naturally. So I had to have a c-section (for those who mightn't know its major abdominal surgery and there are infection and other risks involved - its not a walk in the park)...

Ah here now - I saw Prometheus. A C-section is a minor operation after which a woman can run and jump around like she's in an action movie.

Sin City

mikhail wrote: »

Ah here now - I saw Prometheus. A C-section is a minor operation after which a woman can run and jump around like she's in an action movie.

PMSL.:D:D:D:D

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

And my criteria make sense to me. Equally plucked from the air. And so we have stalemate.

Would you care to answer the question I put to you?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82126808&postcount=3104

Bannasidhe

mikhail wrote: »

Ah here now - I saw Prometheus. A C-section is a minor operation after which a woman can run and jump around like she's in an action movie.

You can? My lazy ass sister-in-law never told me she could do that and her with 2 C- sections under her belt. :mad:

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose, like many an atheist will tell you, it really is just about believing there are no gods and the like. Reasonableness etc has nothing to do with it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, there are discussions that can be had about reason and it's limits, and even consequences that follow from an atheist outlook. They're just not be had here.

Jimi, GCU -

A+A is a discussion forum in which people can debate and discuss pretty much whatever views they like, so long as it's done with clarity, intelligence, wit and maturity.

At this stage unfortunately, neither of you are managing even a single one of those -- if yiz can't up your game, cards, bans etc will be handed out with pleasure.

JimiTime

Sierra 117 wrote: »

There's certainly never any capacity for reason in what you post, Jimi. Just snide remarks.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Such a shame yourself and Jimi are forced in here at gunpoint isn't it.


Oh wait....

uh oh, here comes the mob.....

robindch wrote: »

Jimi, GCU -

A+A is a discussion forum in which people can debate and discuss pretty much whatever views they like, so long as it's done with clarity, intelligence, wit and maturity.

At this stage unfortunately, neither of you are managing even a single one of those -- if yiz can't up your game, cards, bans etc will be handed out with pleasure.

I'm actually not sure if you're being ironic here. If you are, then touché:)
If not then you are hilariously blinkered.

robindch

Jimi, that's one red card. You'll be banned if your next post is as silly as that last yawner.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

Would you care to answer the question I put to you?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82126808&postcount=3104

I wouldn't see the role of support services to involve recommending abortion.

The issue of abortion involves the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. And where those two are held of equal value then you've a stalemate situation when it comes to actions the State can initiate.

And when you follow that right down, it means the person prepared to commit suicide must hold both their life and the life of the child of equal value. To the point of choosing to destroy them both.

The State has no role to play when it comes to that question (other than the people of the State deciding to retain (or otherwise) the status of equal value of life.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't see the role of support services to involve recommending abortion.

The issue of abortion involves the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. And where those two are held of equal value then you've a stalemate situation when it comes to actions the State can initiate.

And when you follow that right down, it means the person prepared to commit suicide must hold both their life and the life of the child of equal value. To the point of choosing to destroy them both.

The State has no role to play when it comes to that question (other than the people of the State deciding to retain (or otherwise) the status of equal value of life.

So essentially you only want medical professionals to offer advice and support that follows a certain ideology. Lovely.

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

What does it mean to be a "person" though? We already recognise distinctions between different levels of personhood, legally and otherwise. For example, a child has fewer rights than someone over 18, and someone who is mentally ill can have their rights constrained when they are committed. A fully grown adult who ends up in a persistent vegetative state after an accident is not a person in the same way they were before their accident.

Personally, I would be prepared to turn off the life support machine of a friend or relative who was in such a vegetative state. They have no awareness, no consciousness as far as can be determined, and IMO anyway, no "life" to speak of. In the same way I would have no problem destroying unused embryos following IVF - it really is just a bunch of cells at that point, with no mental state at all.

That's a worldview speaking. And there are other worldviews that hold other than you do. The ease with which your worldview permits you to dispose of persons need not the same for all worldviews.

A fetus is not a person the same way the mother is.

Again, other worldviews differ. My worldview sees so much of what you value as a mere vehicle for the most valuable aspect of the person and sees our experiences in this world as but a precursor to the "main event".

From my worldviews perspective, what you consider the measure of personhood are (relative) trifles.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

So essentially you only want medical professionals to offer advice and support that follows a certain ideology. Lovely.

And the difference between you and me is?