Abortion Discussion

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This your attempt at dehumanising the unborn? And.we're not talking in trade offs. You knowas well as I do the liberalisation of abortion is what we're talking about.

Is that your attempt at deflecting the question?

Is it equal to you in every particular and deserving of exactly the same legal rights as you or not?

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is that your attempt at deflecting the question?

Is it equal to you in every particular and deserving of exactly the same legal rights as you or not?

It?

Thats what we're up to here then. Dehumanisation. They don't currently have equal rights. Over 30 abortions take place every year in this state where there is a risk to the life of the fetous's mother.

Morag

It as an embryo has no defined sex characteristics.

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What an odd thing to say....

I believe every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law - be they 'juvenile' or not. Including the right to act in self-defence to preserve their life if it is threatened.

You asked did they deserve equal legal recognition; not equal legal protections. But I think perhaps still inequality might be mandated; juveniles require more protection than adults, for instance, they are not permitted to make their own decisions regarding legal drugs, they may not drive, they cannot marry or enter into contracts. In some cases these are protections, in others they are limited recognitions.

But the crux of your point; are you proposing then that rights should only be the province of those born, and that prior to birth an unborn individual should have none?

Peregrinus

Morag wrote: »

It as an embryo has no defined sex characteristics.

Certainly does. Sex is determined by chromosomes, and is determined when the sperm and the egg fuse. Embryos are either male or female; they don't become so somewhere along the way.

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It?

Thats what we're up to here then. Dehumanisation. They don't currently have equal rights. Over 30 abortions take place every year in this state where there is a risk to the life of the fetous's mother.

Yes 'it' - as looking at that image we definitively cannot say 'him/her' at this point in time so 'it' is applicable. As in 'A child fell and hit it's knee'.

But enough of your attempts at deflection.

Any chance you would answer the question I asked?

For the third time now:

Is it equal to you in every particular and deserving of exactly the same legal rights as you or not?

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

You asked did they deserve equal legal recognition; not equal legal protections. But I think perhaps still inequality might be mandated; juveniles require more protection than adults, for instance, they are not permitted to make their own decisions regarding legal drugs, they may not drive, they cannot marry or enter into contracts. In some cases these are protections, in others they are limited recognitions.

But the crux of your point; are you proposing then that rights should only be the province of those born, and that prior to birth an unborn individual should have none?

What is the problem with answering the question I asked?

Awful lot of deflecting going on in these here parts....

I am not proposing anything bar a woman has the right to determine what happens her own body and the right to act in self-defence.

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

Hang on a minute, when did I say any of that?
I asked when does a human become a human being, which offered no logic, and you're assuming I'm maintaining all abortions are murder, despite capital punishment being legal in America? What sense does that make?

Here, unless what you write is not what you mean:

Absolam wrote: »

So it's ok to terminate humans, human beings not so much. At what point do we make the transition from human to human being?

And no I'm not assuming anything, because what you said there (my original quote reproduced) is a clear (if implied) statement that all abortions are murder. And my point in my rebuttal to you was "if terminating a foetus murder, then how can you justify the killing of a grown human?"

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

You asked did they deserve equal legal recognition; not equal legal protections.

"equal legal recognition" and "equal legal protections" are essentially one and the same. If you have equal legal recognition as something else, then you've got equal rights and protections as something else. So your statement here is nonsensical.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"equal legal recognition" and "equal legal protections" are essentially one and the same. If you have equal legal recognition as something else, then you've got equal rights and protections as something else. So your statement here is nonsensical.

It is 'sensical' in terms of Deflection 101 : Quibble about Semantics.
As is Phill's 'Faux Outrage'.

They both seem to have gone quiet now - also Deflection 101.

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes 'it' - as looking at that image we definitively cannot say 'him/her' at this point in time so 'it' is applicable. As in 'A child fell and hit it's knee'.

But enough of your attempts at deflection.

Any chance you would answer the question I asked?

For the third time now:

Is it equal to you in every particular and deserving of exactly the same legal rights as you or not?

I don't know if you are male or female either. I don't refer to you as it?

Also, I have explained. They had equal rights.

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I don't know if you are male or female either. I don't refer to you as it?

Also, I have explained. They had equal rights.

Quibble, quibble. Nonetheless, my sentence was grammatically correct.

Please fill in the missing word ' A child fell down and hurt

---

knee'.

You can use 'their' of course so to stem the tide of your quibble let me rephrase my question:

Do you think the contents of that image is equal to you in every particular and should be treated as such by the law even if it means your life is placed at risk to preserve their's?


'They had equal rights' is not answering the question I asked - nor is it correct. 'They' do not have many of the 'rights' granted to the born in our Constitution - they will acquire these 'rights' after they are born.

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What is the problem with answering the question I asked?

Awful lot of deflecting going on in these here parts....

I am not proposing anything bar a woman has the right to determine what happens her own body and the right to act in self-defence.

I did answer the question you asked (which you asked by the way, when not answering the questions I put to you, but anyway..):

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you believe a clump of cells that would fit on the tip of a pin is exactly the same as you and deserving of equal legal recognition?

When I answered, your reply was

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I believe every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law - be they 'juvenile' or not. Including the right to act in self-defence to preserve their life if it is threatened.

So you see, I wasn't deflecting, I actually tried to answer both your points with my point of view, but I can't help but notice you didn't answer my first two questions, and when I asked the third, you deflected with the line 'I am not proposing anything bar a woman has the right to determine what happens her own body and the right to act in self-defence'.

So, whilst what a woman should and shouldn't be allowed to do with her body, and what we are all entitled to do in self-defence are quite interesting topics, the one at hand was really more about when does a couple of cells become a person (or human being), and therefore I suppose deserving of state protection.
You specified that you believe 'every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law'. So if individuals who are not born are not entitled to that protection, are they entitled to a lesser protection? Or no protection?

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quibble, quibble. Nonetheless, my sentence was grammatically correct.

Please fill in the missing word ' A child fell down and hurt

---

knee'.

You can use 'their' of course so to stem the tide of your quibble let me rephrase my question:

Do you think the contents of that image is equal to you in every particular and should be treated as such by the law even if it means your life is placed at risk to preserve their's?


'They had equal rights' is not answering the question I asked - nor is it correct. 'They' do not have many of the 'rights' granted to the born in our Constitution - they will acquire these 'rights' after they are born.

Their'

Also. I dont need to correct your other statements. Its obvious whats wrong.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And no I'm not assuming anything, because what you said there (my original quote reproduced) is a clear (if implied) statement that all abortions are murder. And my point in my rebuttal to you was "if terminating a foetus murder, then how can you justify the killing of a grown human?"

I think you most certainly are assuming, you can tell for yourself when you said 'clear (if implied)'. I said "it's ok to terminate humans, human beings not so much". The implication you took from that was an extraordinary leap.
If I meant to say all abortions are murder, I would have said, "isn't terminating humans the same as terminating human beings, which is murder? Except of course, when terminating a human being is not murder."
There is no implication in my statement that abortion is murder (all or some). So in case you imply from that that I am prevaricating; murder is a crime, under the law. Abortion could only be considered murder if the law said it was murder. In that case, the statement abortion is murder is true. In any other case, the statement abortion is murder is false.
Have I reasonably set out my bona fides? Hopefully that is not open to interpretive implication?

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"equal legal recognition" and "equal legal protections" are essentially one and the same. If you have equal legal recognition as something else, then you've got equal rights and protections as something else. So your statement here is nonsensical.

Really? So the fact that the state recognises my majority and confers the right to marry, drive a car, buy a house, on my own recognizance is the same thing as the fact that the state can place me in care if I try to do the same things as a juvenile, for my own good?
Obviously not; adults have greater legal recognition holding them responsible for their actions, and juveniles have greater legal protection, absolving them of responsibility. Regardless, I was happy to answer the points, I don't really see why you need to call the distinction nonsensical. We can talk about two things as easily as one if we need to.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Really? So the fact that the state recognises my majority and confers the right to marry, drive a car, buy a house, on my own recognizance is the same thing as the fact that the state can place me in care if I try to do the same things as a juvenile, for my own good?
Obviously not; adults have greater legal recognition holding them responsible for their actions, and juveniles have greater legal protection, absolving them of responsibility. Regardless, I was happy to answer the points, I don't really see why you need to call the distinction nonsensical. We can talk about two things as easily as one if we need to.

So a child's got less rights than a grown up's got? But a blastocyst has the

a. the same rights as an adult
b. the same rights as a child
c. less rights than a child

Specifically, has a blastocyst got a right to life? And how can the state guarantee these rights, particularly when around half of all pregnancies end in abortion in the very early weeks of gestation?

gaynorvader

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It?

Thats what we're up to here then. Dehumanisation. They don't currently have equal rights. Over 30 abortions take place every year in this state where there is a risk to the life of the fetous's mother.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I don't know if you are male or female either. I don't refer to you as it?

Also, I have explained. They had equal rights.

Could you clarify what your stance is instead of trying to correct posters' grammar?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

So a child's got less rights than a grown up's got? But a blastocyst has the

a. the same rights as an adult
b. the same rights as a child
c. less rights than a child

Specifically, has a blastocyst got a right to life? And how can the state guarantee these rights, particularly when around half of all pregnancies end in abortion in the very early weeks of gestation?

I don't think I put myself forward as an expert, but I'll guess that a blastocyst has c. less rights than a child?
And whilst I'd be very shaky on this, I think the current state of play is yes, a blastocyst does have a right to life? I'm guessing the only way the state can guarantee(ish) those rights is by providing appropriate medical care and information to minimise the possibility of spontaneous abortion? And of course by disincentivising the deliberate inducement of abortions by punishment.
Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows the legislation.

The question in my mind is what rights should a blastocyst have? And enbryo, foetus, so on if different.
The right to life seems to me to predicate on the acknowledgement of life first and foremost; what should we consider sufficiently 'human life' to qualify for a right to life?

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

I'm guessing the only way the state can guarantee(ish) those rights is by providing appropriate medical care and information to minimise the possibility of spontaneous abortion?

There isn't any way the state can guarantee the right to life of any blastocyst. Even if they forced all females of reproductive age into special care centres this wouldn't guarantee the life of a blastocyst. So why put such an empty claim into the constitution in the 8th amendment:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

I did answer the question you asked (which you asked by the way, when not answering the questions I put to you, but anyway..):

When I answered, your reply was

So you see, I wasn't deflecting, I actually tried to answer both your points with my point of view, but I can't help but notice you didn't answer my first two questions, and when I asked the third, you deflected with the line 'I am not proposing anything bar a woman has the right to determine what happens her own body and the right to act in self-defence'.

So, whilst what a woman should and shouldn't be allowed to do with her body, and what we are all entitled to do in self-defence are quite interesting topics, the one at hand was really more about when does a couple of cells become a person (or human being), and therefore I suppose deserving of state protection.
You specified that you believe 'every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law'. So if individuals who are not born are not entitled to that protection, are they entitled to a lesser protection? Or no protection?

I did answer your question. I believe a woman should have control over what happens her own body. Is that not clear enough for you?
Each woman should have the inalienable right to decide if she wishes to be pregnant or not.

why should we grant protections to insentient clumps of cells that denies women control over own their bodies?

Why do we not grant an embryo exactly the same rights as a new born?
Every child in the State is entitled to Child Benefit for example - why wait until they are born?

I seem to have missed your reply to my question. Would you please be kind enough to repeat it?

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Their'

Also. I dont need to correct your other statements. Its obvious whats wrong.

Indeed.

You can't answer a simple question.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly does. Sex is determined by chromosomes, and is determined when the sperm and the egg fuse. Embryos are either male or female; they don't become so somewhere along the way.

It is not possible to tell gender in the link Phill provided however.

Phill Ewinn

gaynorvader wrote: »

Could you clarify what your stance is instead of trying to correct posters' grammar?

Its not grammar I'm correcting. Its attitude. Abortions are a last resort. Should be a last resort, and any proceedure should have the rights of the unborn considered.

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its not grammar I'm correcting. Its attitude. Abortions are a last resort. Should be a last resort, and any proceedure should have the rights of the unborn considered.

Is it my attitude you think you are correcting Phill?

That'll be the rock you perish on .

I think you will find what you are actually doing is failing to answer a perfectly simple question.

Do you think the contents of that image is equal to you in every particular and should be treated as such by the law even if it means your life is placed at risk to preserve theirs?

I'm getting a little bit embarrassed for you now tbh.

lazygal

When should child benefit payments kick in? Modern early dating scans are accurate to plus or minus three days of conception. No need to distinguish between the born and unborn children if they are equal in status.

aloyisious

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its not grammar I'm correcting. Its attitude. Abortions are a last resort. Should be a last resort, and any proceedure should have the rights of the unborn considered.

Maybe I'm being a bit picky here but, does the unborn actually have any rights?

I can see how not being aborted might give a feotus possible rights in the future (should it come full-term and/or it's mother gives birth to it as a baby) It seem's to me that while it's still within the womb, the only thing going for it is that possible future and it's for that reason that the republic does not usually allow abortions (except for the reasons stated in the current law signed in by President Michael D Higgins).

Turtwig

I er might just have seen a wee bit of Eastenders.
I know, I know ban me.

Anywayyyy, in it there's an abortion storyline. Girl pregnant. Girl's dad wants her to get an abortion. Boy/father doesn't.

gaynorvader

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its not grammar I'm correcting. Its attitude. Abortions are a last resort. Should be a last resort, and any proceedure should have the rights of the unborn considered.

In your "considered" opinion. Do you then believe the party line that life begins at conception?

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

I know, I know ban me.

Finger's on the button, Jernal. Feelin' twitchy. None of that now.