Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

eviltwin

Shocked at that Late Late Show....that O'Hanlon fella isn't that old, he's probably still practising somewhere. I wonder where is his now and if he has copped on a bit since.

Hotblack Desiato

eviltwin wrote: »

Shocked at that Late Late Show....that O'Hanlon fella isn't that old, he's probably still practising somewhere. I wonder where is his now and if he has copped on a bit since.

If he's 'copped on to himself' then chances are he's an out gay man living happily somewhere. I hope that's true, for his sake.

robp

Obliq wrote: »

Exactly. You can't determine Ireland's abortion rate because many Irish women give UK addresses when having an abortion there. It also does not include the pills that women here access on the internet, unbeknownst to statistical analysis. Also not including back-street abortions.
Of course having no abortion here means that women are forced to have children they don't want, and I'm not aware of any studies showing the rate of giving up babies for adoption in comparison to other countries. Perhaps the Magdalene Laundries have some records? :mad: Financially speaking, obviously many Irish women are deterred from travelling for an abortion they might otherwise have had. That it cuts down on our abortion rate, does not make it right.

Is there evidence anecdotal or otherwise that Irish women give false UK addresses? I can't imagine why they would want to do that as there can be no legal repercussions whatsoever from getting an abortion there. Do back-street abortions even still exist? Although I should note that some legal UK clinics have been know to be as risky as backstreet clinics of urban legend. Non-compliance with the law is a sign of a bad industry. Illegal abortion pills taken in Ireland certainly do confound the stats but if the gestation ages of Irish women is similar to that in the UK it would not explain it the difference.

28064212 wrote: »

No, we don't know that at all, just like we don't know "that a significant portion of women who have actually taken this procedure would not be very positive about it all". You're totally twisting facts out of all recognition

Twisting the facts out of recognition? The HSE's CCP study showed that 31pc of women who had abortion experienced "some regrets", with 13pc reporting that they experienced “a lot of regrets”. They are the facts. Clearly in the longterm those stats would not encourage all women being pro-choice.

Obliq wrote: »

True, it is not a medical reason, but Down syndrome is a medical condition and it is a valid reason. Financially and emotionally, a potential parent may not be able to cope with supporting a child/adult with Down syndrome. Perhaps she/they are in poor health themselves, perhaps the long-term quality of life for this potential person is something that they know they can't provide. I will not judge these people. Only 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks in the UK.

The right to life is contingent on where you were born and what animal you are. It's pointless me telling you again what I believe when you are still not discussing the fact that universal concepts have to include views from people who do not agree with you. Who let you decide whether I can or cannot have an abortion in my country? We who agree with having a choice to have an abortion here are not being given a say in the matter, and as you can see, that pisses me off - I will continue to argue this point till I die or I get my say.

To answer to the comment in bold - I haven't, and I didn't see anyone else do that either. There's no point in answering your last question, since you haven't answered my previous question on the same topic, which was/is a valid argument in an abortion debate.

I would argue our species is bound to protect life to the highest extent possible. I know it is case as our species is special in it's ability to operate beyond our biological instincts even though not all members of our species achieve this. It is hardwired into us that killing our own is socially negative and destructive. Geography bears no influence on what is inherently right and wrong. People have learned ways of circumventing these emotions but only in relatively recent times. This is only a few basic words on very complex topic.

Do you believe human deserve legal protection over other animals and if so why? On the other hand this could be a veiled debate about the existence of absolute truth and thus if so cannot be solved.

28064212

robp wrote: »

Twisting the facts out of recognition? The HSE's CCP study showed that 31pc of women who had abortion experienced "some regrets", with 13pc reporting that they experienced “a lot of regrets”. They are the facts. Clearly in the longterm those stats would not encourage all women being pro-choice.

Did you actually read what I posted? 87% of the women who chose abortion said that they still made the right choice. That sounds like the vast majority are positive about it, they just regret that the choice was necessary in the first place

robp

ninja900 wrote: »

Thank you for that. It seems incredible now but families of that size weren't all that unusual then. Would have liked to hear from the third woman at the end, but the other two were clear that they'd already done their bit for RCC and Ireland :rolleyes: is it any wonder they were living in poverty when they had 9 or 10 or 11 kids. My mother-in-law was born in the 30s and there were 14 of them. You really wonder how people survived at all... (of course not all of them did, 3 of the 14 didn't survive childhood) The brutal nature of RCC doctrine is exposed, they don't care how many kids are born to live short lives of suffering, so long as they're baptised it's +1 for God :mad: and to think they say atheists are devoid of morals, compassion, humanity.

As if big families never existed in non-catholic countries...

robp

28064212 wrote: »

Did you actually read what I posted? 87% of the women who chose abortion said that they still made the right choice. That sounds like the vast majority are positive about it, they just regret that the choice was necessary in the first place

I wrote a significant proportion. 13% and 31% are significant proportions. Maybe no one ever explained the difference between majority and significant proportion but there is a difference.

28064212

robp wrote: »

I wrote a significant proportion. 13% and 31% are significant proportions. Maybe no one ever explained the difference between majority and significant proportion but there is a difference.

Why do you mention 31%? The only relevant figure is 13%. And 87% is a vast majority no matter which way you twist it

Obliq

What did you think of this Aljazeera report then robp? I personally think it's the best piece of reporting I've seen all year - http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2012/11/201211312153530375.html

Hotblack Desiato

robp wrote: »

As if big families never existed in non-catholic countries...

Because of the influence of the RCC contraception was illegal in Ireland until 1979 and even then you had to be married and obtain a doctor's prescription to get condoms until well into the 80s. (This is what Haughey called 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' :rolleyes: ) Condoms couldn't be legally sold in ordinary shops until the mid 90s. Untold misery and poverty was the result of couples being unable to control their fertility.

What gave the RCC the right to impose its doctrines on all citizens, even those of other religions or no religion?

ShooterSF

robp wrote: »

As if big families never existed in non-catholic countries...

So you're suggesting that it's all a coincidence. People just wanted bigger families at a time when the church made it difficult to attain contraception or abortions in Ireland?
When you reduce access to methods to stop pregnancy either pregnancy increases or sex decreases and I'm pretty sure anywhere you look it's the former that actually occurs.

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

So you're suggesting that it's all a coincidence. People just wanted bigger families at a time when the church made it difficult to attain contraception or abortions in Ireland?
When you reduce access to methods to stop pregnancy either pregnancy increases or sex decreases and I'm pretty sure anywhere you look it's the former that actually occurs.

My aunt gave birth to her 6th child in the late 70s when she was 38. Her husband was a farm labourer so money was tight. They lived in a 3 bedroom (2 double/ 1 single) bungalow so space was tight. After the birth of #6 she asked the doctor to 'tie her tubes' - her form of an 'Irish solution to a Catholic problem'. The Doctor refused on the grounds she was capable of having more children (of course she was -why the feck else would she have wanted her tubes tied??). Her husband refused to consider any form of contraception as it was against his religion. Child #6 was the result of the rhythm Method...auntie wasn't taking any more chances...

Outcome - celibacy until aunt went through the menopause - some 24 years later. She did send her husband a card every year on the anniversary of 'the last time they did it' and insisted he put it on the mantelpiece.

robp

ninja900 wrote: »

Because of the influence of the RCC contraception was illegal in Ireland until 1979 and even then you had to be married and obtain a doctor's prescription to get condoms until well into the 80s. (This is what Haughey called 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' :rolleyes: ) Condoms couldn't be legally sold in ordinary shops until the mid 90s. Untold misery and poverty was the result of couples being unable to control their fertility.

What gave the RCC the right to impose its doctrines on all citizens, even those of other religions or no religion?

Don't get so excited. We all know the history. Did I say it was a good idea?

Hotblack Desiato

robp wrote: »

Don't get so excited. We all know the history. Did I say it was a good idea?

Who's excited
We all know the history and we all know it was because of RCC doctrine (although you did attempt to deny that) - and the vast majority of Irish people today would agree it was a huge mistake.

Our laws are for the benefit of society as a whole, not for any church or its followers.

robp

Obliq wrote: »

What did you think of this Aljazeera report then robp? I personally think it's the best piece of reporting I've seen all year - http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2012/11/201211312153530375.html

I will repeat my question. Do you believe humans deserve legal protection over other animals and if so why?

Al Jazeera is better than you give them credit for.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sums it up for me.

The only response can be:

Anyone who supports access to abortion but is unworried by the dangerous abortion advice by state-funded pregnancy counselling services or anyone who refuses to keep an open mind about psychological and oncological risks of abortion to women is no better than the essentially imaginary 'pro-birth' person. The ideology should never be more important then the individual.

Its really frustrating that religion is always brought into this debate by pro-choicers. It is not a religious debate, it is a human rights one. Even my point about big families pushed that point. On the Al Aazeera a manipulative commentor posted the Ryan report. What has the Ryan Report got to do with abortion?

jasonmcco

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

I cant believe that those clips from the Late Late were only 13 years ago. Absolute madness. I struggle to understand how the Catholic church retains any followers when I see things like that. And the fact that they have control over most of our schools.... I despair. I wonder what is taught in the wedding preparation thing as regards family planning now, has it changed or are newlyweds still being told to abstain if they're not looking to conceive?

The only reason the church retains its followers in significant numbers is because it indoctrinates our children in the schools system.

This indoctrination is abuse pure and simple and should not be tolerated.
Take comfort coz they are on a steady decline and will cease to be belief system in the future. Reason we dont ban cults like scientology is because we would have to ban catholicism as well which in my opinion is not a bad idea.Allow the nuts to practice in their own homes only.

pauldla

robp wrote: »

The only response can be:

Anyone who supports access to abortion but is unworried by the dangerous abortion advice by state-funded pregnancy counselling services or anyone who refuses to keep an open mind about psychological and oncological risks of abortion to women is no better than the essentially imaginary 'pro-birth' person. The ideology should never be more important then the individual.

Its really frustrating that religion is always brought into this debate by pro-choicers. It is not a religious debate, it is a human rights one. Even my point about big families pushed that point. On the Al Aazeera a manipulative commentor posted the Ryan report. What has the Ryan Report got to do with abortion?

Alas, my preferred response might give offence, so I will offer a slightly more considered alternative.

To your first point, afaik nobody is advocating giving women dangerous abortion advice. I can't see any other point you are making there, and I do not see how to relates to Bannasidhes earlier post.

To your second point, pro-choicers do not bring religion into the abortion debate. I would venture that pro-choicers hold their views without reference to their religion, though I can stand to be corrected on the matter.

I do agree that the ideology should never be more important than the individual, though, and that is why I am pro-choice. Let the individual decide.

Sin City

pauldla wrote: »

Alas, my preferred response might give offence, so I will offer a slightly more considered alternative.

To your first point, afaik nobody is advocating giving women dangerous abortion advice. I can't see any other point you are making there, and I do not see how to relates to Bannasidhes earlier post.

To your second point, pro-choicers do not bring religion into the abortion debate. I would venture that pro-choicers hold their views without reference to their religion, though I can stand to be corrected on the matter.

I do agree that the ideology should never be more important than the individual, though, and that is why I am pro-choice. Let the individual decide.

Just to correct you there, pro choicers do bring relegion into the arguement. Usually against those on the pro life side. What I mean by that is that most, not all , of pro choicers view the pro life side as being religious in their stance. Following church teachings etc.

Its true that a lot of pro lifers do hold those views , but not all.
There are plenty of atheist/agnostic on the pro life side too.

I would agree with the previous poster that the abortion debate shouldnt be an argument on religious ideas, but should always be viewed as a human/fetal rights arguemnt

pauldla

Sin City wrote: »

Just to correct you there, pro choicers do bring relegion into the arguement. Usually against those on the pro life side. What I mean by that is that most, not all , of pro choicers view the pro life side as being religious in their stance. Following church teachings etc.

Its true that a lot of pro lifers do hold those views , but not all.
There are plenty of atheist/agnostic on the pro life side too.

I would agree with the previous poster that the abortion debate shouldnt be an argument on religious ideas, but should always be viewed as a human/fetal rights arguemnt

I would view religious pro-lifers as people who hold their views because of their religious beliefs. I am aware that there are pro-life supporters who hold their views without reference to religion, too. They would be non-religious pro-lifers. They usually do not bring religion into the debate because, well, they're not religious.

Pro-choices usually don't bring religion into the debate, either. I haven't heard any religious pro-choice arguments. As I said, please correct me if I am wrong, or if I have the wrong end of the stick here.

So, ruling out non-religious pro-lifers, and afaics most pro-choicers, that leaves us with only one suspect for bringing religion to the abortion debate.

To your last point, I agree. And I think that each woman should be able to decide on that issue herself, with the help and support of her family and loved ones, and trained professionals.

Tipsygypsy

robp wrote: »

Its really frustrating that religion is always brought into this debate by pro-choicers. It is not a religious debate, it is a human rights one. Even my point about big families pushed that point. On the Al Aazeera a manipulative commentor posted the Ryan report. What has the Ryan Report got to do with abortion?

To be fair religion comes into the debate when the Catholic Church launch a comprehensive pro-life campaign aimed at every church-goer in the country.. and their children....

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/category/features/day-for-life/

Pro-life views are also taught in many many secondary schools as part of their religion curriculum. And anti-abortion videos shown in schools many also. You cant deny that one the biggest and most vocal pro-life campaigners are the Catholic Church, who (if the census is to be believed as wholly representative of peoples ACTUAL beliefs and not their casual tick-box beliefs) have the ear of the vast majority of the country. When religous organisations DONT involve themselves in pro-life campaigning, (or sticking their noses into any other political/government issues) we will have no further cause to refer to them.

robp

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

To be fair religion comes into the debate when the Catholic Church launch a comprehensive pro-life campaign aimed at every church-goer in the country.. and their children....

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/category/features/day-for-life/

Pro-life views are also taught in many many secondary schools as part of their religion curriculum. And anti-abortion videos shown in schools many also. You cant deny that one the biggest and most vocal pro-life campaigners are the Catholic Church, who (if the census is to be believed as wholly representative of peoples ACTUAL beliefs and not their casual tick-box beliefs) have the ear of the vast majority of the country. When religous organisations DONT involve themselves in pro-life campaigning, (or sticking their noses into any other political/government issues) we will have no further cause to refer to them.

That argument doesn't stand. I actually just had a look at the Catholic bishop's day for life to test your idea. Their whole argument on their website is based on common values and with no reference to souls and little specifically catholic stuff etc. Why don't we hear the CC being slammed when the likes Fr Seán Healy and social justice Ireland rant on the latest budget. Its intellectually lazy to attack religion and not the idea itself. Its the equivalent of blaming Tibet's occupation on communism. Adults should be able to stand on their own feet and defend their views pro-choice or otherwise and not shift the blame.

pauldla wrote: »

I would view religious pro-lifers as people who hold their views because of their religious beliefs. I am aware that there are pro-life supporters who hold their views without reference to religion, too. They would be non-religious pro-lifers. They usually do not bring religion into the debate because, well, they're not religious.

Pro-choices usually don't bring religion into the debate, either. I haven't heard any religious pro-choice arguments. As I said, please correct me if I am wrong, or if I have the wrong end of the stick here.
So, ruling out non-religious pro-lifers, and afaics most pro-choicers, that leaves us with only one suspect for bringing religion to the abortion debate.

People advocating abortion introduce religion to debates all the time to critcise the pro-life movement, overlooking all the atheist pro-life people out there.

jasonmcco wrote: »

The only reason the church retains its followers in significant numbers is because it indoctrinates our children in the schools system.
This indoctrination is abuse pure and simple and should not be tolerated.
Take comfort coz they are on a steady decline and will cease to be belief system in the future. Reason we dont ban cults like scientology is because we would have to ban catholicism as well which in my opinion is not a bad idea.Allow the nuts to practice in their own homes only.

Should we ban catholicism? Maybe ban religion too? A few more dodgey ideologies and why not unsettled travellers too? Why not all ideas which are unpopular? I don't want to start a second irrelevant debate but intolerant rants must be challenged.

Tipsygypsy

robp wrote: »

That argument doesn't stand. I actually just had a look at the Catholic bishop's day for life to test your idea. Their whole argument on their website is based on common values and with no reference to souls and little specifically catholic stuff etc.

On the front page of that website maybe, but dig a little deeper then, go on to their Day for Life page and head to the resources - Homily notes for priests. Very first point is all about Gods gift of life and sacredness of it
http://www.chooselife2012.ie/homily-notes-for-priests/

The First Reading comes from the Creation Account in Genesis 2-3. This provides an ideal context in which to speak of the beauty and sanctity of human life as part of the gift of God’s creation. In marriage a man and woman become ‘one flesh’ and cooperate in the creative action of God in the marvellous gift of bringing forth new life. In chapter 1 of Genesis, God has already proclaimed that he is author of the life of every person, who is formed in his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-28). Every human life therefore has a sacred and inviolable character and no one can, in any circumstance, claim the right to directly destroy an innocent human being.
The Response to the Psalm is ‘May the Lord bless us all

As you can see, this is an entirely religious argument against abortion and it was recommended by the Catholic Bishops Conference that it be part of Mass on the Day for Life and it was NOT based on common values and it DID make reference to 'Catholic Stuff'.

And by the way, I'm okay with Catholic adults being preached to about abortion by Catholic priests, except when its done in front of kids, which it was (including that really awful thing with the Rachels vineyard lady down in Cork -
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Ffury-as-woman-outlines-abortion-at-mass-210541.html&ei=GUqdUNKqCZS6hAf75ICwCA&usg=AFQjCNHyRe1ocGZ2uNhJBD7FjdEFf_rFdw&cad=rjt )
People can say and do whatever they want in their churches, but please dont try to tell me that its the pro-choice side that bring the religion into it.

Why don't we hear the CC being slammed when the likes Fr Seán Healy and social justice Ireland rant on the latest budget. Its intellectually lazy to attack religion and not the idea itself.

I think you'll find people in this forum complain anytime they notice the Church trying to involve itself in the running of the country. Because thats not their place.

Should we ban Catholicism? Maybe ban religion too? A few more dodgey ideologies and why not unsettled travellers too? Why not all ideas which are unpopular? I don't want to start a second irrelevant debate but intolerant rants must be challenged.

Thats just silly, nobody wants to ban anybody else's beliefs/religions, I just don't want our laws to be decided on by them.

And to bring it all back to the original point - its not the pro-life people who bring religion into the debate, the Catholic Church bring themselves into the debate, by preaching on it and by lobbying government on it. Pro-choice people can't just ignore it, much as, Im sure, most of us would like to.

For my own part, I don't think any religion should come into it at all. I agree completely that it is a human rights issue.

stanley 2

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

On the front page of that website maybe, but dig a little deeper then, go on to their Day for Life page and head to the resources - Homily notes for priests. Very first point is all about Gods gift of life and sacredness of it
http://www.chooselife2012.ie/homily-notes-for-priests/



As you can see, this is an entirely religious argument against abortion and it was recommended by the Catholic Bishops Conference that it be part of Mass on the Day for Life and it was NOT based on common values and it DID make reference to 'Catholic Stuff'.

And by the way, I'm okay with Catholic adults being preached to about abortion by Catholic priests, except when its done in front of kids, which it was (including that really awful thing with the Rachels vineyard lady down in Cork -
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Ffury-as-woman-outlines-abortion-at-mass-210541.html&ei=GUqdUNKqCZS6hAf75ICwCA&usg=AFQjCNHyRe1ocGZ2uNhJBD7FjdEFf_rFdw&cad=rjt )
People can say and do whatever they want in their churches, but please dont try to tell me that its the pro-choice side that bring the religion into it.



I think you'll find people in this forum complain anytime they notice the Church trying to involve itself in the running of the country. Because thats not their place.



Thats just silly, nobody wants to ban anybody else's beliefs/religions, I just don't want our laws to be decided on by them.

And to bring it all back to the original point - its not the pro-life people who bring religion into the debate, the Catholic Church bring themselves into the debate, by preaching on it and by lobbying government on it. Pro-choice people can't just ignore it, much as, Im sure, most of us would like to.

For my own part, I don't think any religion should come into it at all. I agree completely that it is a human rights issue.

your right it is a human rights issue two humans rights

MrPudding

stanley 2 wrote: »

your right it is a human rights issue two humans rights

What about his right?

MrP

Lingua Franca

stanley 2 wrote: »

your right it is a human rights issue two humans rights

Indeed, the mother's and the father's. It's generally accepted that the mother's rights supercede the father's since she is the vessel and the most affected by a pregnancy.

For your education, here is an extended list of who has human rights:

People who are alive right now

And here is a truncated list of who doesn't have human rights:

People who aren't alive yet
People who aren't alive anymore
Theoretical people (being the foetus that will grow up to cure cancer or be the next genocidal fascist dictator)

pauldla

robp wrote: »

People advocating abortion introduce religion to debates all the time to critcise the pro-life movement, overlooking all the atheist pro-life people out there.

It would seem we are entering an 'oh yes they do/oh no they don't' cycle here, Rob, so can I ask you to provide some links to back up your assertion, please? As stated earlier, I maintain that it is religious people who introduce religion to abortion debates.

Hotblack Desiato

robp wrote: »

Why don't we hear the CC being slammed when the likes Fr Seán Healy and social justice Ireland rant on the latest budget.

I agree, the RCC really should stfu in relation to secular matters including the budget.

Render unto Caesar and all that

Never mind the blatant hypocrisy of the representatives of the gilded Vatican telling us how uncaring we are about the poor :rolleyes:

jasonmcco

robp wrote: »

That argument doesn't stand. I actually just had a look at the Catholic bishop's day for life to test your idea. Their whole argument on their website is based on common values and with no reference to souls and little specifically catholic stuff etc. Why don't we hear the CC being slammed when the likes Fr Seán Healy and social justice Ireland rant on the latest budget. Its intellectually lazy to attack religion and not the idea itself. Its the equivalent of blaming Tibet's occupation on communism. Adults should be able to stand on their own feet and defend their views pro-choice or otherwise and not shift the blame.




People advocating abortion introduce religion to debates all the time to critcise the pro-life movement, overlooking all the atheist pro-life people out there.



Should we ban catholicism? Maybe ban religion too? A few more dodgey ideologies and why not unsettled travellers too? Why not all ideas which are unpopular? I don't want to start a second irrelevant debate but intolerant rants must be challenged.

I think the line which says allow them to practice in their own homes should have enlightened to the position i dont want to ban peoples belief systems/crutches.

Maybe i should have expanded on what i said about banning catholicism.
Due to their past performance i would like that particular group banned in the same way i agree with laws prohibiting paedophillia.

If we discovered a football club was allowing a paedophile ring to operate with impunity within its club committing unspeakable and disgusting sex acts upon the young players i am sure well i like to believe we would disband the club.What do you think? Or would you allow them to continue enticing the young into their club once they promised they wouldn't do it again oh sorry i think you answered that.

Sometimes i wonder what kind of people actively speak on behalf of church in Ireland.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Indeed, the mother's and the father's. It's generally accepted that the mother's rights supercede the father's since she is the vessel and the most affected by a pregnancy.

For your education, here is an extended list of who has human rights:

People who are alive right now

And here is a truncated list of who doesn't have human rights:

People who aren't alive yet
People who aren't alive anymore
Theoretical people (being the foetus that will grow up to cure cancer or be the next genocidal fascist dictator)

I think one advance of the thread has been establishing personhood isn't something fully obtained with the unborn although they at-least have started to accumulate it. However your failing to grasp that the EU charter of human rights are less related to personhood then you seem to be implying. In fact Article 1 and 2 which grants the right to life makes no reference to persons. We only see 'person' discussed later with discussion of more specific rights that are only applicable to born people. It should be noted that no secular charter of human rights is truly objective but in my opinion they should still be cherished and upheld.

There is nothing theoretical about a fetus. If you want to play a game of emotive smoke and mirrors there is a plethora of manipulative terms to choose from 'ball of cells' etc but at least spare us the dishonesty of fetus = 'People who aren't alive yet'.

Article 1
Human dignity
Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.
Article 2
Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Thats just silly, nobody wants to ban anybody else's beliefs/religions, I just don't want our laws to be decided on by them.

And to bring it all back to the original point - its not the pro-life people who bring religion into the debate, the Catholic Church bring themselves into the debate, by preaching on it and by lobbying government on it. Pro-choice people can't just ignore it, much as, Im sure, most of us would like to.

For my own part, I don't think any religion should come into it at all. I agree completely that it is a human rights issue.

Well Jasonmcca said quite frankly he didn't think it would be a bad idea to ban the CC twice now actually. Both in contradictory posts though.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

I think one advance of the thread has been establishing personhood isn't something associated with the unborn. However your failing to grasp that the EU charter of human rights are less related to personhood then you seem to be implying. In fact Article 1 and 2 which grants the right to life makes no reference to persons. We only see 'person' discussed later with discussion of more specific rights that are only applicable to born people. It should be noted that no secular charter of human rights is truly objective but in my opinion they should still be cherished and upheld.

There is nothing theoretical about a fetus. If you want to play a game of emotive smoke and mirrors there is a plethora of manipulative terms to choose from 'ball of cells' etc but at least spare us the dishonesty of fetus = 'People who aren't alive yet'.



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf



Well Jasonmcca said quite frankly he didn't think it would be a bad idea to ban the CC twice now actually.

Just on the highlighted part, Article 2 does refer to person/people. Everyone means every person, just as 'no one' means no person/people.

So I would understand Article 2 to be stating rights that every person has the right to life.

If people don't regard a foetus as a person it logically follows that Article 2 doesn't apply to a foetus.

robp

koth wrote: »

Just on the highlighted part, Article 2 does refer to person/people. Everyone means every person, just as 'no one' means no person/people.

So I would understand Article 2 to be stating rights that every person has the right to life.

If people don't regard a foetus as a person it logically follows that Article 2 doesn't apply to a foetus.

The most obvious interpretation is that everyone refers to every human being. A fetus is an individual human being. That is irrefutable. The charter use 'human being' interchangeable with 'person' and it doesn't attempt to define person or human being so it doesn't take us very far on the matter unfortunately.