Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Options
1…135136138140141…330

Comments

  • Options
    #4112
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Actually, this is something that irritates me about the pro-life side. I think you would be better to ask them what the difference is... Many pro-life proponents will say that rape is an exception that they are happy to allow.
    You're quite right. Both sides do engage in it. Essentially it's allowing the understandable emotiveness of rape to override any coherent logic in their argument.
    It's pretty common on any emotive issue tbh.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I, personally, would probably argue that the foetus in both cases would have the same rights. Whilst there is clearly an emotive aspect to the scenario, as the woman has been raped, this does not have any impact on the rights the foetus attracts, they both have the same rights with, I would suggest, equal strength. Where the rape is relevant is in the analysis of the woman's rights and how the conflict should be resolved.
    In an abortion the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother are inextricably linked.
    I don't think that you can change the rights that the women is entitled to and not change those that the foetus is entitled to.
    It's a balance where shifting to one side will automatically shift away from the other, I think.

    I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "conflict being resolved". As far as I see it, it's a binary position of having an abortion or not at any given time.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    That is going to depend on the circumstances. There are clearly circumstances where abortion should be available beyond what we would normally consider to be acceptable, risk to the mother etc.
    I think it's clear that the mother, being without a shadow of a doubt a person (as opposed to a foetus), is always entitled to life over the foetus. We'll just take that idea as a given.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    It is not inconceivable that that a raped woman might not have the access, through no fault of her own, to an abortion until it is beyond that point.
    I see that as a possibility, but I don't think that invalidates the foetus's right to life even if it is awful.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    It is a fairly emotive topic and there are several aspects of the pro-life position that I find disgusting, treatment of rape victims being one of them.

    That said, many pro-life proponent's support a special dispensation in the case of rape. This is logically inconsistent unless they accept that rather than it being a matter of life begins at conception, end of, the entire debate is actually about a conflict of interests. The fact that the foetus is the product of a rape does not mean it isn't life, so the only justification for a pro-life person supporting abortion in this circumstance is an acceptance that there is a conflict of rights.

    Agreed. I suppose I don't expect any better of the likes of YD or the Catholic Church and I've plenty of other things to shout at them for but I feel most of all a sense of disappointment when I feel that someone on the "right side" of an issue is using what I would consider to be faulty logic.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Hmmm, I don't think so. I don't think rape changes the rights of the foetus at all, as I mentioned, but I do think it is something that needs to be taken into account when trying to resolve the conflict. When trying to resolve a conflict of rights all aspects should be taken into account. The manner in which conception occurred would be relevant.

    As I mentioned above any alteration of the rights of the mother has an effect on the foetus, ergo, the foetus' and the mother's rights are inextricably linked.
    That the end product is the same for the foetus (being terminated at a later date than a foetus who was not the result of rape) is, I think, proof of this.

    The right to life is very important. Inalienable. In a binary situation between a potential murderer and a victim, then, because the murderer is the one committing the crime, the victim is then allowed, on balance, to kill them in self defence.
    In that situation it is reasonable to bring in the potential of murder because it occurs between the two parties in question.

    The foetus was obviously not the rapist so I don't think that, in the balance of rights between them, an event that occurred between the mother and a different party should be able to effect the foetus/mother balance of rights.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    The fact that some pro-life people, who believe that life begins at conception, support abortion in the case of rape would suggest that this is also not a red herring but very relevant to the debate.
    I don't think it does. I just think it's them using faulty logic due to cultural pressure and the emotiveness of rape.


  • Options
    #4113
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    iguana wrote: »
    Any chance the beermats are the result of a bit of guerilla marketing by some eager pro-lifers and the bar management were clueless about it?

    Actually on looking again, perhaps. You can still see the rest of the bale of mats sitting on a bar stool so these are likely to have just been taken out and it wouldn't take long if there was a couple of people to switch out the holders and put a few mats on the counter. Perhaps a willing member of staff early in the day and it was just a temporary swap out for the photo shoot. Unless they're paying the bar big time to use them I just can't see any other reason.


  • Options
    #4114
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    It is undemocratic to demand that the government not legislate to allow our Republic to run according to it's constitution. These people want the government not to legislate for what is a constitutional right so as to make it difficult to access that right. That's a micro dictatorship, not a democracy.

    Is it undemoractic to lobby?


  • Options
    #4115
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    It is not 'sensationalist, ignorant nonesense' name one other western country where a particular church controls 90% of state funded schools in the year 2013! It is true there was a large protest in France against gay marriage, so I guess some there do try to force their beliefs on others too. The difference is that the French state are secular and therefore less likely to pander to such groups! And anyway the fact France have reached the gay marriage debate is significant. Abortion is still being squabbled about here, so we are likely to be about 40 years away from considering gay marriage. Religion needs to be removed from ALL state funded institutions and law immediately!

    I read in the paper today that Enda Kenny is going to meet with Cardinal Brady so Brady can discuss his concerns about the abortion issue. Why does this meeting need to take place? Brady, along with the Vatican remain free to tell their followers not to have abortions. Catholic people remain free to take that advice. If the country is truly as devoutly Catholic as they attempt to portray, why are they worried about 'floodgates'? Surely there will be hardly anyone availing of the service, due to religious reasons.

    Ur comparison was with Tehran not Turin therefore points made are null.


  • Options
    #4116
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    First of all, I don't think we are a million miles away form each other here...
    Gbear wrote: »
    In an abortion the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother are inextricably linked.
    I don't think that you can change the rights that the women is entitled to and not change those that the foetus is entitled to.
    It's a balance where shifting to one side will automatically shift away from the other, I think.I would agree that the right are inextricably linked, I think we slightly disagree in the mechanism.

    I am arguing that the mother has a particular set of rights. Set against this the foetus may have some rights. That the woman has been raped does not change the rights the foetus has. You are right that there is a balance, but that does not mean that the rights of one party is removed or ignored, it simply means that when set against the conflicting right it is not enough to overcome it.

    Gbear wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "conflict being resolved". As far as I see it, it's a binary position of having an abortion or not at any given time.
    Yes, but in order to to have the abortion or not be allowed the abortion the conflict between the rights must be resolved. This does not mean that the conflict goes away, it merely means that a decision is made as to which party's right takes priority.


    Gbear wrote: »
    I think it's clear that the mother, being without a shadow of a doubt a person (as opposed to a foetus), is always entitled to life over the foetus. We'll just take that idea as a given.
    Up to a certain point I would agree. I have an issue with late term abortions, unless there is extenuating circumstances.
    Gbear wrote: »
    I see that as a possibility, but I don't think that invalidates the foetus's right to life even if it is awful.
    I don’t believe it invalidates the foetus’s right to life either, but what it may do is strengthen the woman’s right, so as it supersedes the right to life of the foetus. I don’t believe a woman should be forced to bear the child of a man who raped her. It is certainly the case that some woman might be happy to do that, and that is fine, I am most certainly not suggesting compulsory abortions for raped women. However, if a woman does not want to continue the a pregnancy which is the result of rape then she should not have to. To me that is cruel and perverse.
    Gbear wrote: »
    Agreed. I suppose I don't expect any better of the likes of YD or the Catholic Church and I've plenty of other things to shout at them for but I feel most of all a sense of disappointment when I feel that someone on the "right side" of an issue is using what I would consider to be faulty logic.
    I think this is where we might part company then… I do not see any faulty logic. There is a conflict of rights, the rights of the foetus on one hand and the pregnant woman on the other. When it comes to deciding who’s rights are strongest the fact that the woman was raped is massively relevant. We are supposed to be a civilised society and we should not force a woman to carry the child of her rapist if she does not want to.

    This is not logically inconsistent. It is merely acceptance that certain circumstances some rights are stronger than others.
    Gbear wrote: »
    As I mentioned above any alteration of the rights of the mother has an effect on the foetus, ergo, the foetus' and the mother's rights are inextricably linked.
    That the end product is the same for the foetus (being terminated at a later date than a foetus who was not the result of rape) is, I think, proof of this.
    I appreciate that I am making somewhat of a semantical (not even a word but I am sure you know what I mean) argument. I am not denying that the rights of both are linked, I think that much is clear.
    Gbear wrote: »
    The right to life is very important.
    Agreed.
    Gbear wrote: »
    Inalienable.
    Not agreed. The right to life is quite clearly not inalienable.
    Gbear wrote: »
    In a binary situation between a potential murderer and a victim, then, because the murderer is the one committing the crime, the victim is then allowed, on balance, to kill them in self defence.
    In that situation it is reasonable to bring in the potential of murder because it occurs between the two parties in question.

    The foetus was obviously not the rapist so I don't think that, in the balance of rights between them, an event that occurred between the mother and a different party should be able to effect the foetus/mother balance of rights.
    I appreciate that in the case of rape the foetus has not actually committed any act, but this does not lessen the rights that the pregnant woman might have. Whilst it is very sad that the foetus will die, I think it would be more sad, and most certainly more cruel, to force the woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.

    In the case of self-defence the person who get killed does not necessarily have to be guilty of anything. An example I have used before is The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. There were a number of people trying to escape down a ladder. One of the people froze and would not move. The other people tried to convince him to move but couldn’t. I think he was probably terrified. Eventually he was kicked off the ladder and fell to his death. He was not guilty of any crime, yet no one was charged with his murder or manslaughter.

    Even your self-defence against a murderer argument has a flaw. If I genuinely believe that a person is about to kill me I can, assuming the other conditions for the defence are present, rely on self-defence should I kill him. This is still the case where I am mistaken in my belief that he was going to kill me. So again, we have a situation where an innocent person has been killed but the person that killed them is legally in the clear.

    Please note, I am not trying to draw an analogy between the foetus and the man on the ladder, nor am I trying to suggest a rape woman thinks, wrongly, that the foetus is a threat to her (though the foetus could well be a treat to her life) I am merely pointing out that it is possible for a person with no legal culpability to be lawfully killed.
    Gbear wrote: »
    I don't think it does. I just think it's them using faulty logic due to cultural pressure and the emotiveness of rape.
    I probably won’t argue too much with you here. They are coming to the correct conclusion, I am not sure I care too much how they get there…

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4117
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    First of all, I'm acutely aware that I'm speaking crassly here about both rape and abortion but I'll be here all day if I have to spend paragraphs avoiding eggshells.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    First of all, I don't think we are a million miles away form each other here...
    Well yeah. We're both pro choice. I believe in allowing women to abort under any circumstance up to a point in time in their pregnancy (which I haven't decided yet - that's a whole other debate).
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I am arguing that the mother has a particular set of rights. Set against this the foetus may have some rights. That the woman has been raped does not change the rights the foetus has. You are right that there is a balance, but that does not mean that the rights of one party is removed or ignored, it simply means that when set against the conflicting right it is not enough to overcome it.

    I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that I don't think that rape is reason enough to shift the balance. I think that you need to pick a point at which a foetus has a right to life and once you do that whether it's a question of wanting to have an abortion because it was the result of rape or for any other reason pales into insignificane against the right to life.

    Purely to illustrate the point, and not to attempt to accurately put a value on the horrors of rape or anything else - if you were to assign values to what rights each party has in this a mother under normal circumstances might get 5, a woman who was raped might get 50,000 - a lot more - but the foetus gets 500 trillion.
    So although I might agree that certain circumstances might shift the rights that someone has I think that anything other than life itself (of the mother) is trivial by comparison.

    Or, to put it another way, I don't think that you can make the argument for late term abortions (or even later term) in the cases of rape and exclude abortion for other reasons.
    If rape is a good enough reason to abort then I think it trivialises the right to life of the foetus to the point where there's little difference between allowing rape-related-abortion or any other kind of abortion.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    In the case of self-defence the person who get killed does not necessarily have to be guilty of anything. An example I have used before is The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. There were a number of people trying to escape down a ladder. One of the people froze and would not move. The other people tried to convince him to move but couldn’t. I think he was probably terrified. Eventually he was kicked off the ladder and fell to his death. He was not guilty of any crime, yet no one was charged with his murder or manslaughter.
    A very interesting point.
    However I think that it's a situation where there's simply a balance of rights. Whether he freezes on the pole because of fear, because he's insane or because he wants to die and kill everyone else, his right to life weighed against the right to life of several other people doesn't hold up so killing him is justified.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Even your self-defence against a murderer argument has a flaw. If I genuinely believe that a person is about to kill me I can, assuming the other conditions for the defence are present, rely on self-defence should I kill him. This is still the case where I am mistaken in my belief that he was going to kill me. So again, we have a situation where an innocent person has been killed but the person that killed them is legally in the clear.

    I disagree. Although it does depend on what you mean by "genuinely".
    To be clear what the law is isn't relevant to me. I'm talking about the morality.
    If you kill someone who you mistakenly thought to be a threat to you, then you are morally culpable for their death unless you really had good reason to believe they were a threat as opposed to just being an idiot or being mentally ill.
    It's impossible to know for sure whether anyone actually planned to kill you or, indeed, if anyone actually believed another person posed a credible threat.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Please note, I am not trying to draw an analogy between the foetus and the man on the ladder, nor am I trying to suggest a rape woman thinks, wrongly, that the foetus is a threat to her (though the foetus could well be a treat to her life) I am merely pointing out that it is possible for a person with no legal culpability to be lawfully killed.

    Yeah, I agree with that.

    I suppose I've addressed the point a few paragraphs above.


  • Options
    #4118
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Justin1982 wrote: »
    2. We already have abortion in Ireland.....The women just have to travel to England to do it. And doing it in their numbers they are as well.

    Correct. And to follow on from that, this would be funny if it wasn't the logical legislative aim of the pro-life side (as we PRO-ABORTS are all murderers - only MAD for the abortions, we are.....)

    14890_10200263443254086_19819255_n.jpg

    Oopsie - not big enough to read. will try fixing....


  • Options
    #4119
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    237093.jpg


  • Options
    #4120
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    RTÉ website has "an estimated several thousand" (whatever that means) attending the "vigil for life" today. Anyone got any better figures, or numbers for the counter-protest?


  • Options
    #4121
    kksaints
    Registered Users Posts: 4,856 ✭✭✭kksaints


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    RTÉ website has "an estimated several thousand" (whatever that means) attending the "vigil for life" today. Anyone got any better figures, or numbers for the counter-protest?

    22000 is the current estimate on the RTE website.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4122
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    Is it undemoractic to lobby?

    It depends what you are lobbying for. Is it democratic to lobby the government to ignore the constitution? A yes or no will suffice.


  • Options
    #4123
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    If the Department of Agriculture can question people at Dublin airport, I don't see why the Department of Health can't. Women travelling to England need help, not abortions.


  • Options
    #4124
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    It depends what you are lobbying for. Is it democratic to lobby the government to ignore the constitution? A yes or no will suffice.

    I agree that right and wrong are absolute. Citizens have a duty to ignore unjust laws and lobby for their change.


  • Options
    #4125
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Methody wrote: »
    If the Department of Agriculture can question people at Dublin airport, I don't see why the Department of Health can't. Women travelling to England need help, not abortions.

    Women travelling to England need people to mind their own business about the nature of their travel.


  • Options
    #4126
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Women travelling to England need people to mind their own business about the nature of their travel.

    The killing of innocent life is everyone's business.


  • Options
    #4127
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Methody wrote: »
    The killing of innocent life is everyone's business.

    Until the kid is born, then pro-lifers want nothing to do with them.


  • Options
    #4128
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,798 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Methody wrote: »
    If the Department of Agriculture can question people at Dublin airport, I don't see why the Department of Health can't. Women travelling to England need help, not abortions.

    Doctors have said otherwise when speaking before the Seanad. There are women who need an abortion for medical reasons but they have to travel to England for one.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #4129
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    Gardai have now updated their official figures to "over 25,000".

    Face it guys. You lost the battle today. The war to protect life will continue.


  • Options
    #4130
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    koth wrote: »
    Doctors have said otherwise when speaking before the Seanad. There are women who need an abortion for medical reasons but they have to travel to England for one.

    Are you suggesting that women are dying in Irish hospitals (including catholic ones) due to doctors failing to intervene in a life-threatening situation?

    Remember there were over 30 such interventions last year, most of them occurred in catholic hospitals. And the church has no moral issue with those interventions.


  • Options
    #4131
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Methody wrote: »
    The killing of innocent life is everyone's business.
    Except it's not. Abortion is legal up to a point in the UK, if an Irish woman travels to another country to seek a legal service it's no one's business but her own. Unless you see women as chattel of course. Or brood mares.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4132
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Methody wrote: »

    Face it guys. You lost the battle today. The war to protect life will continue.

    Puts me in mind of the crusades.


  • Options
    #4133
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Methody wrote: »
    I agree that right and wrong are absolute. Citizens have a duty to ignore unjust laws and lobby for their change.

    Excellent. I find our current lack of abortion laws unjust so it's my duty to ignore it and open up an abortion clinic. I take it I have your support in ignoring unjust laws, thanks.


  • Options
    #4134
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Except it's not. Abortion is legal up to a point in the UK, if an Irish woman travels to another country to seek a legal service it's no one's business but her own. Unless you see women as chattel of course. Or brood mares.

    Oh that's right: all male pro-lifers are "misogynists". That old chestnut...

    Do try harder next time.

    FYI: most of the people I observed at today's life were women. I'd say it was about 60/40.


  • Options
    #4135
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    mikom wrote: »
    Puts me in mind of the crusades.

    I know, tedious gloating aside, who really cares how many people were are it today. They have a democratic right to make their voices heard. The Supreme Court will ultimately be the real muscle behind the decisions made.


  • Options
    #4136
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Excellent. I find our current lack of abortion laws unjust so it's my duty to ignore it and open up an abortion clinic. I take it I have your support in ignoring unjust laws, thanks.

    Right and wrong are absolute, not relative. What's right is right independent of the individual. The opening of abortion clinics in this country would be gravely immoral and therefore any attack on its operation would be fully justified.


  • Options
    #4137
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Methody wrote: »
    Oh that's right: all male pro-lifers are "misogynists". That old chestnut...

    Do try harder next time.

    FYI: most of the people I observed at today's life were women. I'd say it was about 60/40.

    I said nothing at all about men.


  • Options
    #4138
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Methody wrote: »
    The killing of innocent life is everyone's business.


    ..actually you'll find there is freedom to travel, regardless of intent to have an abortion or otherwise.


  • Options
    #4139
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Methody wrote: »
    Gardai have now updated their official figures to "over 25,000".

    Face it guys. You lost the battle today. The war to protect life will continue.

    I'm going to relish the day the Bill is passed and signed into law by the President, no doubt to a chorus of footstamping and wailing about tiiiiiiineeeeee baaaaaaabieeeeees from the anti choice side, who'll rush behind William Binchy to the courts to have it found unconstitutional. And when it is found to be constitutional I'm going to be like this: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D when I see all the anti choicers all riled up about how they finally stopped getting their own way.


  • Options
    #4140
    Methody
    Site Banned Posts: 51 ✭✭Methody


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    I know, tedious gloating aside, who really cares how many people were are it today. They have a democratic right to make their voices heard. The Supreme Court will ultimately be the real muscle behind the decisions made.

    And thank God that most judges are of religious persuasion. They will act, no doubt, honourably and according to their conscience.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4141
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,556 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Methody wrote: »
    I agree that right and wrong are absolute.
    I disagree. I suppose you consider yourself the expert on what is (absolutely) right and wrong - so everyone has do do what you think, even if most people disagree with you?
    Citizens have a duty to ignore unjust laws and lobby for their change.

    And if citizens decide that article 40.3.3 in the constitution needs to be removed, and that some forms of abortion should be permitted, you'll be okay with that? Or will you continue to insist that you know right and wrong better than anyone else?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement