Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

ShooterSF

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think that boundary is quite clear. Life on conception not before.

And what if someone disagrees and life begins before conception, like say a big church? Just different world views as you put it and legislating for theirs doesn't impede yours more than the opposite.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps not that last line explicitly (Perhaps you think the tank of frozen IVF embryos has some other destination besides implantation for the purposes of giving a child to someone who wants it), but every other line was. Perhaps you could respond to those instead of nit-picking?

You've waded in, huffing and puffing with indignation, because of my response to a DoctorEmma's moral dilemma only to find you didn't read what we were actually talking about

Nit-picking is often necessary.

antiskeptic

ShooterSF wrote: »

And what if someone disagrees and life begins before conception, like say a big church? Just different world views as you put it and legislating for theirs doesn't impede yours more than the opposite.

As I pointed out at the start of my participation here, it's not that fruitful to try to alter set-in-stone worldviews. Rather, folk should just get on with trying to have their own worldview hold sway when it comes to the shaping of our society. Some big church is as entitled to attempt that as I am and as you are.

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

A life to hand is worth two in the bush?

That appears to be an admission that 'some' lives are more valuable than others? How can this position be consistent with your assertions that ALL life from conception has an equal right to life and claim to personhood?

Sarky

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nit-picking is often necessary.

You're still avoiding the question. And look at that, doctoremma's last post confirms that we're both coming from the same angle. So enough of that, K? K.

You're choosing a born person over hundreds of embryos. Each of which is a person, according to your worldview. Equally deserving of life. They all have a chance at a full life, everything you've said against abortion applies here too.

And yet you're fine with letting all these people die over one adult human. But pop just one of them in someone's womb and suddenly it's the most precious thing in the world.

How are you not seeing the inconsistency there? Are these unborn people only precious when they're inside someone you can make feel bad about it?

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

That appears to be an admission that 'some' lives are more valuable than others? How can this position be consistent with your assertions that ALL life from conception has an equal right to life and claim to personhood?

The preferred option was rationalised on the basis that after the saving event, I'd be left with a living human. If saving the embryo I'd be left with implantation / pregnancy to be negotiated. And that involves a certain amount of risk.

Hence a bird in the hand.

Edit:

If you're saying the single embryo you've granted would come to term then I'd still pick the adult in order to offset the distress they would suffer on dying.

UDP

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hence a bird in the hand.

Is a living woman not a bird in the hand over a fetus?

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

You're still avoiding the question. And look at that, doctoremma's last post confirms that we're both coming from the same angle. So enough of that, K? K.

Don't kid yourself.

If you want to set your own dilemma then set it and I'll answer it on it's own terms rather than having you hop, skip and jump around mixing answers to her dilemma up with yours.

So: faced with a fire and the option of saving

You're choosing a born person over hundreds of embryos. Each of which is a person, according to your worldview. Equally deserving of life. They all have a chance at a full life, everything you've said against abortion applies here too.

We have a person who is having a full life and embyro's which may or may not be brought to term in order to have a full life.

Which is why I asked doctoremma how many she would grant would come to term. She said one. How many are you granting will come to term?

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is why I asked doctoremma how many she would grant would come to term. She said one. How many are you granting will come to term?

Any number chosen will be arbitrary given that, as with a normal pregnancy, the likelihood the embryo will come to term is far form certain.

If you subscribe to the bird in the hand philosophy then the woman should come first all the time as she is most likely to to be alive when all is said and done, what with her already being alive and all.

mrP

antiskeptic

UDP wrote: »

Is a living woman not a bird in the hand over a fetus?

In the case of Savita, for example, then yes. But not in the case of suicide ideation

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the case of Savita, for example, then yes. But not in the case of suicide ideation

Why?

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

If you subscribe to the bird in the hand philosophy then the woman should come first all the time as she is most likely to to be alive when all is said and done, what with her already being alive and all.

Which is why I 'saved' the adult. And why I think the doctors should have stepped in in Savita's case.

Sarky

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't kid yourself.

If you want to set your own dilemma then set it and I'll answer it on it's own terms rather than having you hop, skip and jump around mixing answers to her dilemma up with yours.

So: faced with a fire and the option of saving




We have a person who is having a full life and embyro's which may or may not be brought to term in order to have a full life.

Which is why I asked doctoremma how many she would grant would come to term. She said one. How many are you granting will come to term?

Let's say one (Oh, don't look so shocked, you knew you were just dodging the question anyway). You're still prioritizing one person over another. Choosing the one who already has a life. You are, in effect, aborting whichever embryo you could have saved, brought to term, and born to live a full life.

So, let's try this once more: Why is the adult life more important when the embryo isn't currently in someone's uterus, but as soon as it's implanted you'll fight tooth and nail for it regardless of the views of a grown adult, like the woman carrying it?

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

Let's say one (Oh, don't look so shocked, you knew you were just dodging the question anyway). You're still prioritizing one person over another. Choosing the one who already has a life. You are, in effect, aborting whichever embryo you could have saved, brought to term, and born to live a full life.

So, let's try this once more: Why is the adult life more important when the embryo isn't currently in someone's uterus, but as soon as it's implanted you'll fight tooth and nail for it regardless of the views of a grown adult, like the woman carrying it?

Punishment.

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

Why?

MrP

Because dying by own hand isn't the same situation as someone who is dying through no choice of their own - such as was the case with Savita.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

So, let's try this once more: Why is the adult life more important when the embryo isn't currently in someone's uterus, but as soon as it's implanted you'll fight tooth and nail for it regardless of the views of a grown adult, like the woman carrying it?

I've already indicated why I'd pick the adult over the foetus in the case like Savita - where both can't be saved. All other things being equal things like personal distress, family distress come into play.

kylith

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because dying by own hand isn't the same situation as someone who is dying through no choice of their own - such as was the case with Savita.

So someone who is so desperate not to be pregnant that she's willing to kill herself deserves to die? Or what do you suggest is done with a woman like that? Lock her up somewhere until the baby's born or leave her to it and let both her and the baby die?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

So someone who is so desperate not to be pregnant that she's willing to kill herself deserves to die? Or what do you suggest is done with a woman like that? Lock her up somewhere until the baby's born or leave her to it and let both her and the baby die?

Looks like we are back to the laundries.

And people wonder how that was allowed to happen -seems to me there are a few who would be glad to see them reopened.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Looks like we are back to the laundries.

And people wonder how that was allowed to happen -seems to me there are a few who would be glad to see them reopened.

That's just what I was thinking.

If you forbid women from having an abortion, but allow them to travel for one then you're not 'saving children', you're making yourself feel better by exporting the problem. If you try to stop them from travelling then you'll need a return to the laundries, and to brace yourself for an increase in women dying; by their own hands, because of dodgy abortion pills, and because of back-alley abortions.

The Mad Hatter

Antiskeptic: you've mentioned Savita Halappanavar three times in the last page, saying that you think the doctors should have intervened to save her life. But, assuming the information we have so far is accurate, in those circumstances things would have progressed exactly as they did. When she presented at the hospital, she was in agony, but no immediate danger of death, and so there were no grounds to intervene with a life-saving abortion.

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because dying by own hand isn't the same situation as someone who is dying through no choice of their own - such as was the case with Savita.

End result is the same, no?

ShooterSF

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I pointed out at the start of my participation here, it's not that fruitful to try to alter set-in-stone worldviews. Rather, folk should just get on with trying to have their own worldview hold sway when it comes to the shaping of our society. Some big church is as entitled to attempt that as I am and as you are.

So how do you integrate your belief that you should fight to have your world view imposed on everyone with your previous mentioned liking of constitutional republics when you are in the minority?

As in do you think the state should legislate for abortion if women's lives are at risk of suicide as demanded by the constitutional republic or do you agree with previous governments' approaches of ignoring the rules of the republic to enforce their own micro dictatorship on this issue?

lazygal

I'd contacted our TDs about abortion. Got a total fudge of a reply from one FG TD, saying he was prolife and had to represent those who held this view, if I wanted my views represented I'd have to ask a prochoice person to run. Never mind the fact he is paid to represent ALL the views of his constituents not just those who's ethical/moral/legal view coincides with his. Also he attached a copy of what looks like Phil Hogan's 'letter of comfort' on abortion from the 2011 general election for my perusal. I've replied drawing his attention to the fact that if he's in favour of enforcing parenthood on Irish women, he shouldn't be voting in favour of cuts to supports for women such as child benefit and taxing maternity payments. I'm not holding my breath on a reply. It's deeply disappointing that a man who's elected to represent an entire constituency feels he can opt out of legislating on something the Irish people have voted on twice and that he can dismiss the views of those who don't agree with him. He's lost about 20 votes from my family and friends, in what will be a very tight constituency next time as its being merged with another area.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

lazygal wrote: »

Got a total fudge of a reply from one FG TD, saying he was prolife and had to represent those who held this view, if I wanted my views represented I'd have to ask a prochoice person to run. Never mind the fact he is paid to represent ALL the views of his constituents not just those who's ethical/moral/legal view coincides with his.

I don't see how his flat refusal constitutes a 'fudge'. A 'fudge' would be if he said "that would be an ecumenical matter".

And how do you expect him to support both views at once? Should he write to the Minister for Health and say "James, I'll resign the whip unless you propose to hold a referendum that simultaneously establishes a right to abortion while prohibiting it completely".

Morag

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was under the impression that the pill prevented ovulation. But if you're talking of pills such as the morning after etc. then yes, abortion by another name.

The contraceptive pill ( combined and progesterone only) and all types of artificial hormone contraception, the patch, the implant, the nuvaring, the IUS all prevent pregnancy by several of means, one of which is to prevent ovulation, it also thickens the mucus at the entrance of the cervix and it thins the membrane which lines the womb, which prevents implantation.

It is that action of thinning the membrane which is why it is prescribed to easy the effects of period pains and if a person really believe life begins at conception then they should not use any forms of artificial hormonal contraception.

aloyisious

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see how his flat refusal constitutes a 'fudge'. A 'fudge' would be if he said "that would be an ecumenical matter".

And how do you expect him to support both views at once? Should he write to the Minister for Health and say "James, I'll resign the whip unless you propose to hold a referendum that simultaneously establishes a right to abortion while prohibiting it completely".

It's possible that the use of fudge in "total fudge of a reply" is synomnous with s**t, but I'm theorizing here.

JimiTime

lazygal wrote: »

I'd contacted our TDs about abortion. Got a total fudge of a reply from one FG TD, saying he was prolife and had to represent those who held this view, if I wanted my views represented I'd have to ask a prochoice person to run. Never mind the fact he is paid to represent ALL the views of his constituents not just those who's ethical/moral/legal view coincides with his. Also he attached a copy of what looks like Phil Hogan's 'letter of comfort' on abortion from the 2011 general election for my perusal. I've replied drawing his attention to the fact that if he's in favour of enforcing parenthood on Irish women, he shouldn't be voting in favour of cuts to supports for women such as child benefit and taxing maternity payments. I'm not holding my breath on a reply. It's deeply disappointing that a man who's elected to represent an entire constituency feels he can opt out of legislating on something the Irish people have voted on twice and that he can dismiss the views of those who don't agree with him. He's lost about 20 votes from my family and friends, in what will be a very tight constituency next time as its being merged with another area.

To be honest, I'd very much appreciate honest up front answers like that from politicians. You can now, as you say, not vote for him because of it. He could have given some garbled political non-answer. He told you his view quite plainly, and while its not what you agree with, be thankful he gave it so directly. It'd be great if they were all so upfront about everything.

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

It's possible that the use of fudge in "total fudge of a reply" is synomnous with s**t, but I'm theorizing here.

Exactimundo.

fisgon

Intriguing ad in the Irish Times today, with a link to the following website.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/default.asp

It seems to be Catholicism without the Catholicism - pro choice, pro contraception. Curious. I'm wondering in what sense exactly they are catholics.

swampgas

fisgon wrote: »

Intriguing ad in the Irish Times today, with a link to the following website.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/default.asp

It seems to be Catholicism without the Catholicism - pro choice, pro contraception. Curious. I'm wondering in what sense exactly they are catholics.

The message from their president here is a curious read. Not sure what to make of it to be honest, but I certainly prefer their version of catholicism to that of Herr Ratzinger.