Abortion Discussion

Nodin

Absolam wrote: »

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.

Dear o dear.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

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?

Certainly would seem to be a major factor in defining a person. Given that the converse, a person who no longer has brain activity is (effectively?) no longer considered a person, the idea has merit.

gaynorvader wrote: »

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.

Since I'm not proposing the idea, more pointing out it is a current fact, the question would probably get a better answer on the legal forums. I'm guessing the answer would be something like 'if authors of crime novels could be shown to be planning real crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should be convicted'.

gaynorvader wrote: »

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.

How so? Rights are granted and preserved by the societies we live in. Outside those societies, there are no rights. I have a right to freedom of expression in Ireland; I don't have that right in China. I have a right to life in most western societies; I don't have that right in the middle of the Indian ocean.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Cool, so we can leave the whole potential person argument aside?

Not really; it's going to inform the opinion of most people who will vote on the subject. Even I suspect to infringing on your brain activity example above; I think some people would insist that their brain dead spouse/child/parent has a right to life for as long as machines can keep their bodies operating.

gaynorvader wrote: »

A strange concept, what about unissued issue? :P

One issue at a time is probably enough.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

{...}

How so? Rights are granted and preserved by the societies we live in. Outside those societies, there are no rights. I have a right to freedom of expression in Ireland; I don't have that right in China. I have a right to life in most western societies; I don't have that right in the middle of the Indian ocean.

In the middle of the Indian Ocean you absolutely have the right to free speech. No one will interfere with you saying whatever you like. China is different as the law specifically prohibits certain freedoms of speech.

Absolam wrote: »

Not really; it's going to inform the opinion of most people who will vote on the subject. Even I suspect to infringing on your brain activity example above; I think some people would insist that their brain dead spouse/child/parent has a right to life for as long as machines can keep their bodies operating.
{...}

It is where I would disagree. Everything that makes us human is contained in our brains. Your heart, arms, lungs, legs, arse, etc. are just human shaped. As for potential, everything has potential for pretty much everything given time, it's silly to base laws on potential.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

In the middle of the Indian Ocean you absolutely have the right to free speech. No one will interfere with you saying whatever you like. China is different as the law specifically prohibits certain freedoms of speech.

Just because I can say what I want in the Indian ocean doesn't mean I have a right to; just that I won't be interfered with. I can do the exact same in China where I don't have a right to.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It is where I would disagree. Everything that makes us human is contained in our brains. Your heart, arms, lungs, legs, arse, etc. are just human shaped.

Which is fair enough, I'd be inclined to agree with you, though I'd be a bit iffy about divvying up someones assets while they were still on a ventilator. However, I think quite a few people would disagree with you purely for reasons of sentiment.

gaynorvader wrote: »

As for potential, everything has potential for pretty much everything given time, it's silly to base laws on potential.

Nevertheless, it's easy to have opinions on more specific and immediate potentialities, such as an imminent birth, or death. Opinions give reason for dispute, and the penultimate arbiter of dispute is law. Whilst our abortions laws will undoubtedly not be based on potential, I suspect they will acknowledge it to some degree.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Just because I can say what I want in the Indian ocean doesn't mean I have a right to; just that I won't be interfered with. I can do the exact same in China where I don't have a right to.

Granting rights is just allowing you to do something you could do already then?

Absolam wrote: »

Which is fair enough, I'd be inclined to agree with you, though I'd be a bit iffy about divvying up someones assets while they were still on a ventilator. However, I think quite a few people would disagree with you purely for reasons of sentiment.

Almost certainly true. Sentiment has no place in law however.

Absolam wrote: »

Nevertheless, it's easy to have opinions on more specific and immediate potentialities, such as an imminent birth, or death. Opinions give reason for dispute, and the penultimate arbiter of dispute is law. Whilst our abortions laws will undoubtedly not be based on potential, I suspect they will acknowledge it to some degree.

Probably.

Bellatori

Well NI has had its abortion tourism capped by the High Court in England as well... they have to pay.

BBC report

eviltwin

Bellatori wrote: »

Well NI has had its abortion tourism capped by the High Court in England as well... they have to pay.

BBC report

ugh

Why is the law so restrictive in NI considering its part of the UK? Crazy decision, as if the cost of travel isn't expensive enough from the north.

Bellatori

eviltwin wrote: »

ugh

Why is the law so restrictive in NI considering its part of the UK? Crazy decision, as if the cost of travel isn't expensive enough from the north.

This is a problem with devolution. They have a different abortion law and the High Court held that they are responsible for what they chose to do so why should the rest of the UK have to pay.

alaimacerc

Bellatori wrote: »

This is a problem with devolution. They have a different abortion law and the High Court held that they are responsible for what they chose to do so why should the rest of the UK have to pay.

It was different before devolution too, though. The NI assembly is merely the current mechanism for entrenched religious and cultural conservatism making itself politically felt.

Bellatori

alaimacerc wrote: »

It was different before devolution too, though. The NI assembly is merely the current mechanism for entrenched religious and cultural conservatism making itself politically felt.

Agreed... Which is why I still think we should say to Eire... Here you are... six counties and welcome...!?

Thae irony of this is that few in the rest of the UK want Scotland to leave BUT if NI said 'We're off' I'm guessing there would be a cheer and flags out all over the rest... Sort of God bless and good riddance!

Real problem is that who would want them?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

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?

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?

My use of Citizens as against Citizen was in reference to referendums and how changes are made to the constitution by Single Citizens casting votes Yea or Nay, the outcome decided by the simple majority of the vote made by Multiple Citizen voters.

There was mention earlier in the debate here of the constitution and how what was contained in it was decided by citizens, that it would affect citizens. The referendums of 1983, 1993 and 2002, were all concerned with abortion, and the decisions made by the citizens in voting on them resulted in changes to the constitution/al law. Those changes affected single citizens and how he/she/they can (or cannot) carry out their daily and/or private lives.

alaimacerc

gaynorvader wrote: »

A strange concept, what about unissued issue? :P

This is something of a recurring post hoc theme in Ab's line of argument. Issue is issue before it's issued, individuation/"a human life" occurs on the basis of its future multicellularity at a point at which it's actually unicellular, and so on.

Categorical hindsight is a great tool for getting ahead of oneself.

alaimacerc

Bellatori wrote: »

Agreed... Which is why I still think we should say to Eire... Here you are... six counties and welcome...!?

Rather quaint terminological distinction you're making there. Not very post-GFA New Dispensation!

Thae irony of this is that few in the rest of the UK want Scotland to leave BUT if NI said 'We're off' I'm guessing there would be a cheer and flags out all over the rest... Sort of God bless and good riddance!

I think most of the UK would find a strong element of "letting the terrorists win" unpalatable if it happened too soon or too triumphally. (The former is very unlikely, the latter a near-certainty.) I think it's certainly a conceptually easier for English people to get their head around "GB" as an entity than a "UKoEW&NI". (Wales leaving seems pretty much unthinkable for everyone.)

Real problem is that who would want them?

That's a tad harsh. The RoI might be distinctly cafeteria and massively compartmentalised in its attitude to the North, but does want it in theory. Just so long as the Unionists are very meek and well-behaved and no-one expects RTE to acknowledge any other name for Solidus City.

ObTopic: there is something of a recurring theme in abortion discussions north and south together (whether through general similarity of the two, or political sentiment), which I think isn't especially helpful. (Mind you, back in the Halappanavar case, lots of US bloggers were rapidly lumping together the US and Ireland as if they were legally interchangeable, which truly boggled my small brain.)

alaimacerc

gaynorvader wrote: »

Granting rights is just allowing you to do something you could do already then?

Depends on your philosophical perspective. Some people like to distinguish between "negative rights" and "positive rights". Some (the small-state/libertarian agenda, or cafeteria diners therein) like to claim that only the former are true "rights", and the latter or statist overreach.

In Ireland the mixture of laissez-faire capitalism and statist overreach is so thorough and complete that when one is discussing the law (as possibly distinct from philosophy) one would have to acknowledge that some positives rights exist too.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

Granting rights is just allowing you to do something you could do already then?

It's entitling you to something you may already have the facility for. You're already alive; a society that asserts your right to life is asserting the will to act to defend or protect your life either legally or physically, within the confines of its' own remit. Ireland won't send a group of soldiers to protect your life if you take a quick holiday in Syria (well, unless you're considerably more important than I think either of us probably are), but it will take measures to prevent, and act to prosecute, someone who conspires to, acts to, or succeeds in, killing you in Ireland.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Almost certainly true. Sentiment has no place in law however.

I disagree. Clemency and mercy are both sentiments, and valued in Judges decisions, for the sake of just one example. We make laws for people and people are sentimental, so the law should be cognizant of that. Not that the law should be a slave to sentiment, but I think there are occasions when it ought to acknowledge it.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

It's entitling you to something you may already have the facility for. You're already alive; a society that asserts your right to life is asserting the will to act to defend or protect your life either legally or physically, within the confines of its' own remit. Ireland won't send a group of soldiers to protect your life if you take a quick holiday in Syria (well, unless you're considerably more important than I think either of us probably are), but it will take measures to prevent, and act to prosecute, someone who conspires to, acts to, or succeeds in, killing you in Ireland.

Exactly. Law doesn't grant you life, it just bans other people in its power from taking away your life.

Absolam wrote: »

I disagree. Clemency and mercy are both sentiments, and valued in Judges decisions, for the sake of just one example. We make laws for people and people are sentimental, so the law should be cognizant of that. Not that the law should be a slave to sentiment, but I think there are occasions when it ought to acknowledge it.

I guess what I meant was that sentiment had no place in lawmaking. As in a lawmaker should not make a law born of sentiment.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

Exactly. Law doesn't grant you life, it just bans other people in its power from taking away your life.

Rights don't grant you life either; only the protection of law. Pretty much the only thing that can grant life is something that's in a position to take life away, and chooses not to.

Brian Shanahan

Bellatori wrote: »

Agreed... Which is why I still think we should say to Eire... Here you are... six counties and welcome...!?

The reaction I'd have if you actually managed to push that true is unprintable, even if I was to use all symbols.

Re NI I think we should adapt the advice of John F. Hickory of GTA:VC fame and dig a trench all the way around the border and declare it independant of everywhere else. We can rescue the non-crazies from there first.

Bellatori

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The reaction I'd have if you actually managed to push that true is unprintable, even if I was to use all symbols.

Re NI I think we should adapt the advice of John F. Hickory of GTA:VC fame and dig a trench all the way around the border and declare it independant of everywhere else. We can rescue the non-crazies from there first.

I'm sure the rest of the UK feels exactly like that but the problem of being British is that we are simply too stupidly polite to say so.

Sulla Felix

Video about one womans experience with abortion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxPUKV-WlKw

Obliq

Had to laugh bitterly at this new Savage Eye upload. Probably better here than in the Funny Side.

Richard Bingham

Obliq wrote: »

Jesus......Literally.

Do you think you have such a good grasp on the meaning of life that you can dictate the level of struggle people other than you should have to endure? If you could save yourself from struggle, don't try telling me you wouldn't, unless the solution goes against your personal beliefs - your's, not mine.

If struggle is such a worthy part of life, we should all stop seeking/receiving health care immediately, eh? What a load of b****x.

More misquoting.

I was talking about the kind of struggle's which we can't avoid, not proposing that people commit acts of stupidity.

Richard Bingham

eviltwin wrote: »

Adversity doesn't always build character, in fact it can be hugely damaging to the person involved and I speak from personal experience on that. Life is not a movie where what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and its incredibly patronising to women in complete despair over an unwanted pregnancy when you know nothing of the lives and won't be forced to live with the consequences.

Give the child up for adoption so, and one of the thousands of childless couples will happily live with the consequences, as you put it.

Richard Bingham

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No one has ever suggested abortion should be used in place of contraception.

I haven't been proved wrong or invented anything.

In an argument for abortion, you said "Then of course there is me who has three but wishes I had fewer".

Were you saying that you should have been more careful?

Besides, are you saying it isn't used in place of contraception. What about the women in the UK discussed earlier in the thread, who have had multiple abortions. Are these just really unlucky with their efforts at contraception?


I said that "The majority of people in Ireland do not believe in abortion for lifestyle reasons."

Lingua Franca wrote: »

That's a very definite statement. Source?

What, you want me to trot out a biased poll conducted by say the Workers Solidarity Movement or some similar type authority!

Call it a proposition. Are you proposing that Irish people favour abortion on demand?

lazygal

Married couples in Ireland cannot put their children up for adoption.

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

More misquoting.

I was talking about the kind of struggle's which we can't avoid, not proposing that people commit acts of stupidity.

One can avoid struggling with an unwanted pregnancy. You can terminate it.

Richard Bingham

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's clearly an echo in here. From a week and a half ago:



Same offensively trite slogan (and even the same you're/your error). Didn't we spend the time in between unpicking your (lack of an actual) definition of "personhood", among other things? To say nothing about flagging up the problematic nature of the comparison itself.

Conducting a dialog of the deaf is one thing, but this is getting perilously close to megaphone stuff.

I won't apologise for repeating myself to those who make comments which don't make sense in the context of the subject being discussed. You can't seriously be proposing that should a woman feel any inclination at all, to have an abortion, that there is literally nothing else at all whatsoever to be considered, as if it was like a decision to use a tanning salon, which may harm the user, but has no effect at all on others.

I don't care if you don't like the comparison. It's valid to state that a woman availing of the services of an abortion clinic is not the same as a woman availing of the services of a tanning salon.

alaimacerc wrote: »

(and even the same you're/your error)

It's flaw of mine - not as bad as having absolutely no value on human life imo:-)

Richard Bingham

An explanation of one of the many reasons why abortion doesn't help pregnant women;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8szDctI9lXM

I expect that Pro-Choice people won't watch this to the end, as its hard to listen to.

We won’t be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.
Barack Obama (when speaking about Newtown)

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Married couples in Ireland cannot put their children up for adoption.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. They can be fostered though and there is nothing to prevent the law on adoption from being changed.

oldrnwisr

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I haven't been proved wrong or invented anything.

Well then you must have missed this post.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Besides, are you saying it isn't used in place of contraception. What about the women in the UK discussed earlier in the thread, who have had multiple abortions. Are these just really unlucky with their efforts at contraception?

You know it really would be best if you didn't speculate on something which nobody can possibly claim to know.

The abortion statistics that are recorded only record the age and ethnicity of parous women. Therefore, we cannot know or even speculate why the women who have had abortions previously have gone back a second or third time. For example, it could be that a woman is trying seriously to have a child but that her biology means that she repeatedly develops gestational problems requiring an abortion. But that would be an unfounded speculation. Just like yours.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Call it a proposition. Are you proposing that Irish people favour abortion on demand?

Well it kind of depends on who you ask. While the overall percentage of voters who support "on-demand" abortion is typically 35-40%, multiple polls have shown that a majority of younger voters (i.e. 18-45) favour legal abortion when the woman deems it to be in her best interest.