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 Discussion
Options
Comments
-
So that I'm not making another illogical leap then, when you say "like before 12 weeks", do you mean that after 12 weeks gestation is an acceptable point to deny the choice to abort? If so, what led you to the conclusion that this is an appropriate arbitrary line? If not, then I'm afraid I'm still in the dark about where and why you might draw a line.Until such a time as you could be reasonably sure that there has been sufficient time to make the decision if you want to have a child or not, like before 12 weeks, I don't see the need for any reason other than not wanting to be pregnant to have an abortion. After that is more of a health matter IMO, as I'm certainly uncomfortable with the idea of a larger foetus being euthanised for the sake of lifestyle. But that's me.0 -
So that I'm not making another illogical leap then, when you say "like before 12 weeks", do you mean that after 12 weeks gestation is an acceptable point to deny the choice to abort? If so, what led you to the conclusion that this is an appropriate arbitrary line? If not, then I'm afraid I'm still in the dark about where and why you might draw a line.
FFS, No. Can you not read something said simply without this constant wriggling about? It's like I'm explaining this to my 12 year old, tbh.
Here we go again then. This is for the third time now, right, so pay attention to where I've highlighted this time as it has already answered your question." before 12 weeks, I don't see the need for any reason other than not wanting to be pregnant to have an abortion. After that is more of a health matter IMO, as I'm certainly uncomfortable with the idea of a larger foetus being euthanised for the sake of lifestyle. But that's me."
A health matter meaning that it would be a matter for doctors to sign off on, like in the UK. To clear this up once and for all, this means my preference would be for more liberal laws than the UK.
No shame abortion - no reason needed under 12 weeks.
Medical reasons after that. Like I said, that's my own personal line in the sand.0 -
Gosh. I hope I wasn't as intemperate when I was answering your questions. Luckily for me you bolded a different part this time, which emphasises a different aspect of your answer.FFS, No. Can you not read something said simply without this constant wriggling about? It's like I'm explaining this to my 12 year old, tbh. Here we go again then. This is for the third time now, right, so pay attention to where I've highlighted this time as it has already answered your question.
The reason I didn't ask about this was because I included the word choice; I understand that someone might potentially choose to not abort a pregnancy despite medical advice, but assume any (non-hardline pro life) person accepts that a medically necessary abortion is simply medically necessary, and not a matter of choice, or at least 'at-will' choice.A health matter meaning that it would be a matter for doctors to sign off on, like in the UK. To clear this up once and for all, this means my preference would be for more liberal laws than the UK.
This being what I was inquiring after; leaving aside the 'shame' part, (since you hardly think there should be shame post 12 weeks?) why is 12 weeks where you draw your own personal line in the sand?No shame abortion - no reason needed under 12 weeks.0 -
Gosh. I hope I wasn't as intemperate when I was answering your questions. Luckily for me you bolded a different part this time, which emphasises a different aspect of your answer.
Well done for spotting it then. Type can be so hard to see sometimes :pac: I'm feeling pretty bleedin' intemperate because I'm well weary of your winding me up with outrageous assertions and sudden lapses in the ability to read. I do not believe you are not being obtuse, and it's tiring.The reason I didn't ask about this was because I included the word choice; I understand that someone might potentially choose to not abort a pregnancy despite medical advice, but assume any (non-hardline pro life) person accepts that a medically necessary abortion is simply medically necessary, and not a matter of choice, or at least 'at-will' choice.
Whatev's. I'm done with our discussion after this. You'll have to find someone else to answer whatever your question is there...This being what I was inquiring after; leaving aside the 'shame' part, (since you hardly think there should be shame post 12 weeks?) why is 12 weeks where you draw your own personal line in the sand?
It's already a line - the start of the second trimester and where an embryo can react to stimuli. After that I feel there should be a reason that a doctor would need to sign off on (but this is an entirely arbitrary line and just reflects my feelings on the matter) although this is unfair on women from Ireland in particular (for example) who may not have the funds to travel to abortion services within 12 weeks.
I'm done.0 -
Fair enough. You've obviously more patience for asking questions on this subject than answering them. But (as far as I can tell, hopefully without any illogical jumps) it seems you would be in favour of at will abortion up to the point where an embryo reacts to stimuli, and opposed (broadly, with exceptions) to abortion thereafter.0
-
Advertisement
-
-
I did say it was my supposition. However, to correct my supposition, I would like to ask, reasons of medical necessity aside, do you think that at will abortion should be available after a foetus is capable of reacting to stimuli? If so, do you think there is a point where that availability should be withdrawn, and what do you think that point is?Stop putting words in my mouth please.0 -
I did say it was my supposition. However, to correct my supposition, I would like to ask, reasons of medical necessity aside, do you think that at will abortion should be available after a foetus is capable of reacting to stimuli? If so, do you think there is a point where that availability should be withdrawn, and what do you think that point is?
Let me turn that question around... at what point do you think we should sacrifice the mothers life for that of a foetus?0 -
That's not actually turning the question around but still; at no point except where the mother may request it (in my opinion). Having thought about it for a moment though, how often do you think circumstances arise that would make it necessary to kill a mother in order to save a foetus? Potentially with some cancers but otherwise?Let me turn that question around... at what point do you think we should sacrifice the mothers life for that of a foetus?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
We have been around it before, but the blunt answer is; at the moment of conception. It's dna is human, and it's cells are replicating, so it's human, and alive; a human life.gaynorvader wrote: »Apologies if you've been asked this before, but when do you think a foetus becomes human life and why?For me it is around 12 weeks when it first develops brain activity, because for me that is what distinguishes a living human from a dead one.
The fact that it is a human life however, does not seem to me to confer a right to life; that right (I think) belongs to a person and is granted to that person by the society they live in. We (mostly) agree that once a person is born they are in fact a person with the same entitlements as other people. Most people seem to think that a child in utero (and possibly in vitro, from Obliqs points) is, for at least some of that time, at least a potential person, and that deserves some recognition. When that recognition should be granted is something I haven't settled on, hence my questions here. Obliqs suggestion of when an embryo is sufficiently developed to react to stimuli is appealing; but other animals, even plants, react to stimuli and we don't accord them personhood. Brain activity is a possibility, but what does that mean? The brain is growing before the three month point, and there are some electrical impulses, but 'consciousness' seems to be quite some time later than that.
So a short answer to your real question is: I would support at will abortion up to a point where it could be convincingly demonstrated (to me) that the foetus could not justifiably be called a potential person, and after which point could. So far I haven't found a sufficiently convincing argument to settle on.0 -
That's not actually turning the question around but still; at no point except where the mother may request it (in my opinion). Having thought about it for a moment though, how often do you think circumstances arise that would make it necessary to kill a mother in order to save a foetus? Potentially with some cancers but otherwise?
Actually it is the other way around. Your premises all start from the view of the foetus having rights to life. I am asking about whether a mother has rights to life.
Once you realise that you would see that these are conflicting rights and that the whole abortion issue is where we draw the line between the two. As I stated before there is no really great option but probably something that might be justified as the least worst option.
I would also point out that, when discussing conflicting rights a decision is being made on priority. It could be argues that the foetus has NO priority as it is a parasite, wholly dependant on the mother. Starting from there it then becomes clear that the decision to support this 'parasite' is entirely up to the mother and thus we have an argument based on a 'Woman's Right to Chose'.
BTW I am not supporting that argument per se simply pointing out where decisions on priority lead. What seems clear to me is that there is no absolute right answer here but that each case is different. On that basis I think the Irish courts have made a sensible start in preventing blanket rules being drawn up and insisting that difficult cases should come to court. They still have some way to go IMHO but the principle seems to me right.0 -
Either you haven't read my posts, or you're confusing them with someone else. My premise has been to ask when should a foetus have a right to life. And, if you had read my posts you'd already know I understand a mother has a right to live.Actually it is the other way around. Your premises all start from the view of the foetus having rights to life. I am asking about whether a mother has rights to life.
Again,if you read my posts you'd have noticed I specified that a born human life would seem to have greater value than an unborn one. In fact, my reply to your question said that we should not sacrifice a mothers life to save a foetus. Did you even read that post? You haven't replied to the question I asked in it.Once you realise that you would see that these are conflicting rights and that the whole abortion issue is where we draw the line between the two. As I stated before there is no really great option but probably something that might be justified as the least worst option.
Possibly. As I said though, conflicting rights would seem to be a rare occurrence.I would also point out that, when discussing conflicting rights a decision is being made on priority.
It could, but it would be an obviously erroneous argument, since a foetus is not a parasite. This has been frequently pointed out on boards, so you don't even need to go as far as a medical website to discover it.It could be argues that the foetus has NO priority as it is a parasite, wholly dependant on the mother.
To be fair, the Right to Choice argument has a far more substantial foundation than incorrectly calling a foetus a parasite.Starting from there it then becomes clear that the decision to support this 'parasite' is entirely up to the mother and thus we have an argument based on a 'Woman's Right to Chose'.
I'm not certain that the Irish courts have adopted a strategy as you suggest. I think they are forced to rule on individual cases as a result of poorly framed legislation. If we had properly thought out Constitutional provisions, framed with 21st century technology in mind, we could have a body of law that deals effectively with the issue and doesn't require people to engage in extended legal action over immediate medical issues. To be effective however, this will require a proper understanding of what place the majority of Irish people want abortion to have in our society.BTW I am not supporting that argument per se simply pointing out where decisions on priority lead. What seems clear to me is that there is no absolute right answer here but that each case is different. On that basis I think the Irish courts have made a sensible start in preventing blanket rules being drawn up and insisting that difficult cases should come to court. They still have some way to go IMHO but the principle seems to me right.0 -
We have been around it before, but the blunt answer is; at the moment of conception. It's dna is human, and it's cells are replicating, so it's human, and alive; a human life.
{...}
Is a heart in a cooler a human life? Is a headless body on life support a human life to be saved? How about skin grown in laboratories, should that be considered human too?So a short answer to your real question is: I would support at will abortion up to a point where it could be convincingly demonstrated (to me) that the foetus could not justifiably be called a potential person, and after which point could. So far I haven't found a sufficiently convincing argument to settle on.
I know, the argument is more or less based around at what point does a foetus gain its own rights. This is tied into when it becomes a living human being. The word "potential" is disastrous to me when considering legislation. The water molecules in your toilet bowl have the 'potential' to become part of a human being, every human has the 'potential' to be a serial killer. Law should not concern itself with potentials, but with what has happened. It's the same reason you can't convict someone of attempted murder if they never attempted it, even if you had witness testifying that they had told them of their plans and found their plans written down. Potentially, they were likely to have attempted it, but we can't know the future, and shouldn't presume to judge on the basis of what might be.0 -
1) No, it's a part of what was a human life.gaynorvader wrote: »Is a heart in a cooler a human life? Is a headless body on life support a human life to be saved? How about skin grown in laboratories, should that be considered human too?
2) Ditto.
3) Yes human, but no not a human life.
I could revise my definition from a quick one liner to a few hundred pages of specifics detailing growth, differentiation, requisite stages of development etc but you know the gist would remain the same; is there any reason to debate it? I doubt anyone really wants to extend a right to life to some skin grown on collagen, or to a heart in a cooler.
These things are all true, but legislation has to concern itself with potentials. You might not convict your example of attempted murder, but you would convict them of conspiracy to attempt murder. Regardless, we have to concern ourselves with potential because we as a species are inclined to empathise with our young. I don't believe Ireland will pass a law permitting at will foetal terminations at 8 months and 3 weeks; even though they are still 'potential' most people will want to extend some level of protection to them. So law should concern itself with potentials, if people want it to.gaynorvader wrote: »I know, the argument is more or less based around at what point does a foetus gain its own rights. This is tied into when it becomes a living human being. The word "potential" is disastrous to me when considering legislation. The water molecules in your toilet bowl have the 'potential' to become part of a human being, every human has the 'potential' to be a serial killer. Law should not concern itself with potentials, but with what has happened. It's the same reason you can't convict someone of attempted murder if they never attempted it, even if you had witness testifying that they had told them of their plans and found their plans written down. Potentially, they were likely to have attempted it, but we can't know the future, and shouldn't presume to judge on the basis of what might be.0 -
1) No, it's a part of what was a human life.
2) Ditto.
3) Yes human, but no not a human life.
I could revise my definition from a quick one liner to a few hundred pages of specifics detailing growth, differentiation, requisite stages of development etc but you know the gist would remain the same; is there any reason to debate it? I doubt anyone really wants to extend a right to life to some skin grown on collagen, or to a heart in a cooler.
I'm not suggesting they do, my point was that I don't think "living cells with human DNA that replicates" is a good enough definition for human life.These things are all true, but legislation has to concern itself with potentials. You might not convict your example of attempted murder, but you would convict them of conspiracy to attempt murder. Regardless, we have to concern ourselves with potential because we as a species are inclined to empathise with our young. I don't believe Ireland will pass a law permitting at will foetal terminations at 8 months and 3 weeks; even though they are still 'potential' most people will want to extend some level of protection to them. So law should concern itself with potentials, if people want it to.
I was under the impression that one or more people involved in the conspiracy had to have taken an actual step in it for it to be a crime, but a quick search proves that to be false. I would say that that's a poor law then, as it seeks to predict future behaviour.
I disagree that we must concern ourselves with legislating potential. Law cannot permit something, only ban something, everything is permitted by default. A law stopping people from aborting foetuses after a certain stage has been reached or certain criteria met would stop terminations at 8 months and 3 weeks, or what have you. The question for legislators is at what point does a foetus prove that it is a viable person? Or, if you insist on involving potential, at what point does it pass in to the realms of strong potential of surviving (which seems wishy-washy to me)?0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26416
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/07/guilt-free-3/When Emily Letts got pregnant, she knew she would get an abortion. Then she decided to film it. Letts, 25, is an abortion counsellor at Cherry Hill Women’s Center in New Jersey, which is where she had her abortion. The non-graphic video focuses on her face and shows her breathing and humming through the procedure.
I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman’s process, but what I really wanted to address in my video is guilt.
Our society breeds this guilt. We inhale it from all directions. Even women who come to the clinic completely solid in their decision to have an abortion say they feel guilty for not feeling guilty.
I didn’t feel bad. I do feel a little irresponsible and embarrassed about not using birth control. I was able to learn and move forward. And I am grateful that I can share my story and inspire other women to stop the guilt.’
Very brave women to do this, especially given the death threats constantly carried out by the so called pro-life crowd in the USA.
She is right to feel no guilt for what she did, at the end of the day its her life and her body0 -
Whatever one might think of him on other scores, Mr Shatter was a social liberal......one would hope one of similar mind replaces him.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0507/615716-alan-shatter-mick-wallace/0 -
I have been wondering if the RCC had a policy of allowing the pregnant mother to die, if there was a choice between saving her or the feotus in her womb, so went on the net for an answer. My question was raised on seeing the film "The Cardinal" where a priest chose to let his pregnant sister die in order to save her child. I don't know if this document, or what it contains, has been run by the RCC or approved of by it...
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FPROLENC%2FENCYC043.HTM&ei=mWVqU4-eKMmB7QbstoHYCA&usg=AFQjCNEJxlMFRqoQS_0Gqvx89q1fYdnpRg&bvm=bv.66111022,d.ZGU
Near the top of the docu, there's are figure 43-1 and figure 43-2 sections. 43-1 describes what are defined as lying statements about the church positions on abortion over the ages and 43-2 gives what's described as the church rebuttal of those lies. You have to keep that in mind when (and if) you read through the document. At various points those in favour of abortion are described as: Pro-abortion, Anti-life and Pro-death, so don't get your dander up at what you read and throw your PC at the wall.
The following item on how the church view's abortion and defines some surgical Ops to save the pregnant woman can be seen approx 1/3rd way through it. While scrolling down, stop when the grey square indicating scrolling position on the right is at that Approx point on the document. Below is the Para title to look for:
ABORTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
THE 'DOUBLE EFFECT.'
Source of Confusion.
The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby's life.
The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.
In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.
..........................................................................................................................................................................
There's also this article about the film itself and lists the RC Church luminaries who were involved during it's making, amongst whom was a young priest, Joseph Ratzinger. The character that "The Cardinal" was supposedly based upon, Cardinal Spellman, is alleged to have tried to block the making of it, refusing to co-operate with it and denying it's crew access to the church in his diocese...
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcm.com%2Ftcmdb%2Ftitle%2F70290%2FThe-Cardinal%2Farticles.html&ei=TGRqU4ypBayv7Abel4GwBA&usg=AFQjCNEUgKpzJEqf9I0yr6i9e8EKNeg9Kg&bvm=bv.66111022,d.ZGU0 -
aloyisious wrote: »...{/QUOTE]
I loved the clearly Orwellian double think going on in there. Rationalisation is a wonderful skill and here it is taken to an art form. But then that would be my definition of religion. Making the inexplicable explicable through the use of carefully selected double think.0 -
Advertisement
-
Whatever one might think of him on other scores, Mr Shatter was a social liberal......one would hope one of similar mind replaces him.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0507/615716-alan-shatter-mick-wallace/
Social liberal? Ha!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Social liberal? Ha!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If this (only just come to my attention) turns out to be true, then I'd have to agree.
http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?15787-Clare-Daly-accuses-Alan-Shatter-of-%EF%BF%BDperverting-the-course-of-justice%EF%BF%BD-over-the-Sarah-Bland-case#.U2qxIa1dXky0 -
Well... a coherent collection of living cells containing human dna, capable of replication and differentiation? Would that be a good start? Happy to stipulate that a one line answer can't reasonably provide an entire accurate definition of what a human life is.gaynorvader wrote: »I'm not suggesting they do, my point was that I don't think "living cells with human DNA that replicates" is a good enough definition for human life.
But it's not predicting anything; it simply sets out that it's not just a crime to do something, it can also be a crime to plan to to something. The concept rises above the concept of intent, and deals with the fact that the would be criminal went further than intending to murder, they took steps to facilitate the undertaking of a murder.gaynorvader wrote: »I would say that that's a poor law then, as it seeks to predict future behaviour.
What exactly are you basing that statement on?gaynorvader wrote: »Law cannot permit something, only ban something, everything is permitted by default.
Law proscribes certain activities (like theft murder etc), but it also asserts rights; like the right to free speech, association, travel etc. The idea that something is permitted is different from the idea that something has not been legislated for, in which case permission has neither been given nor refused.
Actually, the question for society is at what point do we choose to say the foetus should be accorded (some or all of) the rights of a person. It's up to us to decide whether should it be decided based on viability, personhood, humanity, religion, length of gestation, or whatever we choose. It's up to legislators to enact the will of the people appropriately.gaynorvader wrote: »A law stopping people from aborting foetuses after a certain stage has been reached or certain criteria met would stop terminations at 8 months and 3 weeks, or what have you. The question for legislators is at what point does a foetus prove that it is a viable person?
I didn't insist on involving survival potential; I suggested that the majority of people will be inclined to impart at least some of the rights of a person to what they might consider a potential person, if only to avoid the possibility of killing a 8 month and 3 weeks old foetus because it isn't yet a person. All for varying values of 'potential' and 'person' obviously.gaynorvader wrote: »Or, if you insist on involving potential, at what point does it pass in to the realms of strong potential of surviving (which seems wishy-washy to me)?
Survival potential increases with technology, and could in extremis, render the entire discussion moot. When we reach a point where a foetus at any stage of development can simply be removed and brought to term in vitro, you have a strong case for saying there's no need to kill anything, whether or not it's a person. Horrendously expensive idea probably, which does nothing to curb overpopulation, but a possibility. I wonder would people argue for a right to destroy their own issue rather than allow it be brought to term without their consent?0 -
Well... a coherent collection of living cells containing human dna, capable of replication and differentiation? Would that be a good start? Happy to stipulate that a one line answer can't reasonably provide an entire accurate definition of what a human life is.
..........
There isn't one, nor is one likely to arrive that would be agreed upon. It is, however, possible to agree that a woman is an autonomous human being who - given the effects of pregnancy - should be allowed use her own discretion as regards to whether or not to go through with it.0 -
-
-
Only by eventually compromising the autonomy of the woman, which is unacceptable.
No, you can just disagree by saying "given the effects of pregnancy a woman should not be allowed use her own discretion as regards to whether or not to go through with it". Agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiment doesn't affect anyones autonomy.
If everyone agreed with your sentiment and enshrined their agreement in law, a womans' autonomy would be extended to include dominion over other human lives in her body (depending on how the law was phrased obviously). Repealing that law would then compromise her autonomy, which, presumably, would be unacceptable to anyone opposing the repeal.0 -
No, you can just disagree by saying "given the effects of pregnancy a woman should not be allowed use her own discretion as regards to whether or not to go through with it". Agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiment doesn't affect anyones autonomy.
If everyone agreed with your sentiment and enshrined their agreement in law, a womans' autonomy would be extended to include dominion over other human lives in her body (depending on how the law was phrased obviously). Repealing that law would then compromise her autonomy, which, presumably, would be unacceptable to anyone opposing the repeal.
The situation outlined in Para 1 above would be one citizen thinking about another citizen "I have the right to decide what you do to your body and it's contents, you do not have that right".
To me, that sound's remarkably like the situation enshrined here in law at the moment, re citizens having dominion over the life and body of another citizen, a practical description of the situation you mention in Para 2.0 -
The situation outlined in para 1 is an example of how it is possible for someone to state their disagreement with Nodins statement. Maybe I should have phrased it differently. Still, I can't tell how you arrive at the conclusion it's one person telling another person that the first person has the right to decide what the second person can do with their body, but the second person can't. How did you come to that conclusion?aloyisious wrote: »The situation outlined in Para 1 above would be one citizen thinking about another citizen "I have the right to decide what you do to your body and it's contents, you do not have that right".
I note you've switched from citizen to citizens. Is there a particular group of citizens that you think have dominion over the life and body of another citizen?aloyisious wrote: »To me, that sound's remarkably like the situation enshrined here in law at the moment, re citizens having dominion over the life and body of another citizen, a practical description of the situation you mention in Para 2.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well... a coherent collection of living cells containing human dna, capable of replication and differentiation? Would that be a good start? Happy to stipulate that a one line answer can't reasonably provide an entire accurate definition of what a human life is.
I don't think so. I think the crux of human life is brain activity, obviously coupled with what you mention. Without brain activity, what differentiates living tissue from a living person?But it's not predicting anything; it simply sets out that it's not just a crime to do something, it can also be a crime to plan to to something. The concept rises above the concept of intent, and deals with the fact that the would be criminal went further than intending to murder, they took steps to facilitate the undertaking of a murder.
Should authors of crime novels then be arrested for planning crimes? How can you know their intent, they may just be using the novels as a front? I might accept it as justified if the conspirator had went out and bought murder weapons or other material components of the plan.What exactly are you basing that statement on?
Law proscribes certain activities (like theft murder etc), but it also asserts rights; like the right to free speech, association, travel etc. The idea that something is permitted is different from the idea that something has not been legislated for, in which case permission has neither been given nor refused.
If there were no laws you would still have these rights. I guess you could say the law protects these rights (by banning other people from infringing on them), but it doesn't grant them.Actually, the question for society is at what point do we choose to say the foetus should be accorded (some or all of) the rights of a person. It's up to us to decide whether should it be decided based on viability, personhood, humanity, religion, length of gestation, or whatever we choose. It's up to legislators to enact the will of the people appropriately.
I agree, well put.I didn't insist on involving survival potential; I suggested that the majority of people will be inclined to impart at least some of the rights of a person to what they might consider a potential person, if only to avoid the possibility of killing a 8 month and 3 weeks old foetus because it isn't yet a person. All for varying values of 'potential' and 'person' obviously.
Survival potential increases with technology, and could in extremis, render the entire discussion moot. When we reach a point where a foetus at any stage of development can simply be removed and brought to term in vitro, you have a strong case for saying there's no need to kill anything, whether or not it's a person.
Cool, so we can leave the whole potential person argument aside?Horrendously expensive idea probably, which does nothing to curb overpopulation, but a possibility. I wonder would people argue for a right to destroy their own issue rather than allow it be brought to term without their consent?
A strange concept, what about unissued issue? :P0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement