Abortion Discussion

Absolam

Ralphdejones wrote: »

How can you discuss the ramifications, if you've not looked into that, you said you wish to err on the side of caution

Well, I could point out that a sperm cell is alive, and has human dna, so is arguably human life, if not a human life.
I could say human life can be considered to be a philosophical concept, and if you frame a philosophical question as a scientific enquiry, you may end up with a philosophical or a scientific answer, neither of which agrees, or satisfies your intent.
That might be how I'd start discussing the ramifications. And I'd probably add that it's an interesting question.

Vivisectus

Absolam wrote: »

I probably would, though the more remote the possibilty the greater I'd weigh the suffering.

Does that not contradict what you go on to say below a bit? You are not willing to risk any chance of destroying a person, even if this requires certain suffering from a woman and even if there is only a remote theoretical possibility that what we are destroying could be considered a person...

Also, it seems to me that the same objection would apply to using contraceptives and the morning after pill. What do you base the distinction on?

Absolam wrote:

It is; as long as we can't (and I mean I can't since I'm only voicing my opinion) be reasonably certain that the living cells we are destroying are not a living person, then I think we should not destroy them unless we must do so to save another living persons life.

See above - what is your view on the apparent contradiction I mentioned there?

Absolam

Vivisectus wrote: »

Does that not contradict what you go on to say below a bit? You are not willing to risk any chance of destroying a person, even if this requires certain suffering from a woman and even if there is only a remote theoretical possibility that what we are destroying could be considered a person...

I didn't actually say I'm not willing to risk any chance, I said as long as we can't be reasonably certain that the cells we are destroying are not a living person. If there is a reasonable certainty then we may be risking some small chance, but at least we've established a reasonable certainty.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Also, it seems to me that the same objection would apply to using contraceptives and the morning after pill. What do you base the distinction on?

I don't think you can reasonably say that an egg cell, or a sperm cell is a living person. So contraceptives that prevent the joining of cells wouldn't seem to fall foul of the idea. However, the whole issue of when the cells might reasonably be called a person was discussed in depth earlier in the thread, so I don't propose to attempt to rehash it here.

Vivisectus wrote: »

See above - what is your view on the apparent contradiction I mentioned there?

As above I don't think there's a contradiction. Whilst I never said I would not be willing to risk any chance, it would be true to say I would be risk averse when it comes to potentially killing someone; I would want to be reasonably certain there was practically no chance if I could. As I suspect would most people who are pro-choice; they would simply be less broad in their consideration of what a living person might be.

secondrowgal

Absolam wrote: »

The Irish Times interview says she said "I said I am not capable of going through with this. I said I could die because of this." to an IFPA staff member. Not that she could kill herself; that she could die. I would have taken that as she feared for her life if people found out she was pregnant. Even if the staff member were qualified to determine that this expression could 'evolve' into suicidal ideation, they could not state that suicidal ideation existed at the time.
I wouldn't be surpised if the suiciday ideation began to occur at a point after which the woman realised she could not obtain an abortion in Ireland in her particular circumstances, and that she also wouldn't be provided with the means to travel to another jurisdiction for an abortion.
I'm not sure the IFPA staff member would necessarily be well informed on the potential evolution of suicidal ideation, or that it would be part of their remit to assess it?

Are you saying the onus was on the IFPA staff member to suspect potential future suicidal ideation and suggest to the woman that she attend a GP who could assess that (as yet unexpressed) wish and convene a panel to review it once it occured? That seems a lot of pressure to put on that person.
The (Irish Times) report doesn't say that she verbalised suicidal ideation during contact with the IFPA, it says that she said by the time they told her the problem with going to England was the money she had decided to kill herself; not that she told them so.

I'm not sure 'opportunities' is the word I'd use, but it seems to me that aside from the IFPA staff member whom you think should have determined future suicidal ideation, the GP and the panel (who are the only parts of 'the system' here really) acted appropriately and with alacrity?

I wouldn't be surprised by the bit in bold either, even though it is pure speculation on both our parts. But if it is true, it's again showing the complete disregard for the woman's choice/control over her own body/life. She wanted an abortion, they wouldn't give it to her, she became or even "appeared" become suicidal and she STILL didn't get the abortion.

How much torture does one person have to go through, with a ticking time bomb inside them - and that's what it is - a time bomb because the foetus doesn't stay in there forever, it eventually comes out, one way or another.

Someone else in another post mentioned the phrase "destroying" a life - apparently that only refers to the unborn foetus' life, not the mother's, because, you know, mental torture, being forced to give birth in any way, etc., that obviously couldn't constitute "destroying" a life.

I despair...

Vivisectus

I didn't actually say I'm not willing to risk any chance, I said as long as we can't be reasonably certain that the cells we are destroying are not a living person. If there is a reasonable certainty then we may be risking some small chance, but at least we've established a reasonable certainty.

Those are a lot of reasonablenesses and certainties, and a lot depends on what you label both a certainty, reasonable, and a person. Which is the reason it is disappointing that you seem unwilling to go deeper into your ideas about potential personhood.

I don't think you can reasonably say that an egg cell, or a sperm cell is a living person. So contraceptives that prevent the joining of cells wouldn't seem to fall foul of the idea. However, the whole issue of when the cells might reasonably be called a person was discussed in depth earlier in the thread, so I don't propose to attempt to rehash it here.

I missed that bit, and it would be a bit of a job to trawl through all the previous posts. Perhaps you can just briefly recap your position in stead of rehashing en entire discussion?

Why is it unreasonable to consider an egg and/or a sperm cell a person? And when and how does the change occur from unreasonable to reasonable? What is it about cells joining that makes it the defining factor between there being possible personhood, and there being no (reasonable assumption of) possible personhood?

As above I don't think there's a contradiction. Whilst I never said I would not be willing to risk any chance, it would be true to say I would be risk averse when it comes to potentially killing someone; I would want to be reasonably certain there was practically no chance if I could. As I suspect would most people who are pro-choice; they would simply be less broad in their consideration of what a living person might be.

Let us have reasonableness above all things! And yet your definition of "reasonably certain" is so incredibly specific that in all practical terms it is the same as being unwilling to risk any chance at all, because you feel that we cannot prove it that cells that have come together isn't a person.

And yet you feel that this is not the case when cells have not touched yet: condom-users do not share this burden of proof that you put squarely on anyone who would consider an abortion.

I do not see any clear qualitative difference that we can put our finger on. Why is keeping cells from coming together reasonable, and why is stopping them from developing further once they have not reasonable? Or rather, why does stopping cells from coming together and developing into a human being bring reasonable certainty that we have not killed a person, and why does stopping cells from developing into a human being NOT reasonable certainty that we have not killed a person?

Bearing in mind that in either case we are discussing a possible future sentient being.

To me it sort of smacks of the modal fallacy.

Absolam

secondrowgal wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised by the bit in bold either, even though it is pure speculation on both our parts. But if it is true, it's again showing the complete disregard for the woman's choice/control over her own body/life. She wanted an abortion, they wouldn't give it to her, she became or even "appeared" become suicidal and she STILL didn't get the abortion.

I'd be sceptical of the 'complete disregard'; it doesn't appear her choices/control were being limited in any regard other than when it came to choices likely to cause either her own or her childs death.

secondrowgal wrote: »

How much torture does one person have to go through, with a ticking time bomb inside them - and that's what it is - a time bomb because the foetus doesn't stay in there forever, it eventually comes out, one way or another.

And I don't think anyone actually tortured her (with the exception of the putative rapist). She may have been denied what she wanted, and she was certainly horrifically traumatised by her experience, but I don't think that quite rises to the level of torture.

secondrowgal wrote: »

Someone else in another post mentioned the phrase "destroying" a life - apparently that only refers to the unborn foetus' life, not the mother's, because, you know, mental torture, being forced to give birth in any way, etc., that obviously couldn't constitute "destroying" a life.

I'm sure it can be used to refer to both, however in the case of the foetus it means to extinguish entirely, so that it is no more. In the case of the mother it means to damage beyond repair, so that it is no longer as it was before. But in the case of the mother at least it still exists.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure it can be used to refer to both, however in the case of the foetus it means to extinguish entirely, so that it is no more. In the case of the mother it means to damage beyond repair, so that it is no longer as it was before. But in the case of the mother at least it still exists.

Simply existing isn't enough for people,

People deserve to have their mental health too and forcing a women to term is knowingly damaging a persons mental health in such an instance.

If your happy with "existence" as an acceptable standard for people then issues such as homelessness, poverty etc aren't a problem in your world it seems. After all the people still exist. Doesn't matter if its a miserable, depressing existence, life destroying experience...you still "exist".

In this case your happy to put a women through one of the most awful, violating experiences a women can go through. But its all ok at the end of the day as she'll still exist. Thats extremely worrying.

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

I'd be sceptical of the 'complete disregard'; it doesn't appear her choices/control were being limited in any regard other than when it came to choices likely to cause either her own or her childs death.

Oh yes, I'm sure they asked her what she wanted for dinner and let her choose her own clothes. They're not monsters, after all :mad:

To be serious though - you are disingenuously omitting the point that her choices over same (your comment above) being limited do show complete disregard for her life, as her pregnancy was the reason she was suicidal.

And I don't think anyone actually tortured her (with the exception of the putative rapist). She may have been denied what she wanted, and she was certainly horrifically traumatised by her experience, but I don't think that quite rises to the level of torture.

Bullsh1t. She's just undergone 16 weeks of torture at the hands of the Irish State. Where's your shame man? Your prioritising the welfare/life of a foetus over her welfare/life disgusts me.

Edit: To address your comment in bold - this is NOT like being denied what she wanted. It was being denied what she NEEDED. This is not like refusing a child an ice cream, so try not to belittle her experience to a "want".

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/20/theres-no-appetite-for-a-further-referendum/

Foreign affairs minister Charlie Flanagan spoke to Seán O’Rourke this morning and, at one point, they discussed the abortion story. Specifically, they talked about how the HSE are currently carrying out a review of the care given to the young woman.

Seán O’Rourke: “What about the possibility that what emerges from the report may suggest to you and colleagues that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act be revisited in some way?”

Charlie Flanagan: “Well there is a suggestion that the act isn’t working. However, I think before we can be conclusive on that, or before we can form an opinion on that, we need to be appraised fully of the facts and the circumstances. There is, built into the legislation, and you know, we’re not going to revisit the lengthy hearings, the submissions and the engagement that ultimately formed the act about this time last year. I think it’s important that the review mechanism, under the act, be allowed take place. If the current case means bringing that forward a few months, then so bet it. There doesn’t appear to be an appetite for a further referendum. However, it’s important that Government does address the issue in the context of the facts of this, of this particularly harrowing case so early into the operation of the legislation.”

O’Rourke: “What would you say to the suggestion, and it’s put forward increasingly by your partners, in Government, in the Labour Party, that 31 years on from the original amendment, the article 40.3.3 that was inserted into the constitution, that that should now, in the round, be examined with a view perhaps to putting the issue before the people again.”

Flanagan: “Yeah, well, I think it’s important that we look at, we’d say the Fine Gael position, my party position. And before the last election we made three essential and important points. Firstly, we said that we wouldn’t legislate for abortion in Ireland and we didn’t. Secondly, we said… ”

O’Rourke: “That’s disputed, but we’ll let that go.”

Flanagan: “We had to address, it was incumbent upon us to address the issue of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgement in the A, B, C case and that was addressed, in the form of legislation. And, thirdly, we promised that we women in pregnancy would receive an appropriate level of medical treatment that was necessary. That is inbuilt in the legislation and it’s important in the context of this case that you now mentioned, that there is adequate follow through on that and that we satisfy ourselves that there was an appropriate level of medical treatment and attention available to that person.”

Utter nonsense for him to claim this, its like claiming there's no appetite for a marriage equality vote.
At the end of the day the UN have told Ireland to get its act together and we're still refusing to.

The people against giving women a choice on such matters have nothing to fear on a vote on this issue, after all they believe they have the moral highground and most people support them....right? (after all they claim this each time they import and bus people to their marches)

Vivisectus

well, there was no appetite for a referendum amongst people who do not want to get burned on a tricky political subject when they are already not looking so hot in the polls. That much is certainly true.

lazygal

I propose an email campaign. I for one am ravenous for another referendum.

Ralphdejones

Vivisectus wrote: »

well, there was no appetite for a referendum amongst people who do not want to get burned on a tricky political subject when they are already not looking so hot in the polls. That much is certainly true.

lazygal wrote: »

I propose an email campaign. I for one am ravenous for another referendum.

We could make it like the EU ones, where you keep re-voting untill the governent gets the result they want.

secondrowgal

Absolam wrote: »

I'd be sceptical of the 'complete disregard'; it doesn't appear her choices/control were being limited in any regard other than when it came to choices likely to cause either her own or her childs death.

And I don't think anyone actually tortured her (with the exception of the putative rapist). She may have been denied what she wanted, and she was certainly horrifically traumatised by her experience, but I don't think that quite rises to the level of torture.
I'm sure it can be used to refer to both, however in the case of the foetus it means to extinguish entirely, so that it is no more. In the case of the mother it means to damage beyond repair, so that it is no longer as it was before. But in the case of the mother at least it still exists.

We've all been over this a 1,000 times. It isn't a "child", it's a foetus.

You may not "think" that anyone actually tortured her, and that's your opinion, but if it were me, a woman, in that position I would most certainly deem it torture.

Tick tock...

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

We could make it like the EU ones, where you keep re-voting untill the governent gets the result they want.

Do you think a referendum removing the eighth amendment would pass? If it does pass would you respect the will of the people and the choice for women to have access to abortion/killthebabies in their own country instead of travelling to do so?

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think a referendum removing the eighth amendment would pass? If it does pass would you respect the will of the people and the choice for women to have access to abortion/killthebabies in their own country instead of travelling to do so?

I guess he wouldn't, its not the answer he wants after all

Ralphdejones

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think a referendum removing the eighth amendment would pass? If it does pass would you respect the will of the people and the choice for women to have access to abortion/killthebabies in their own country instead of travelling to do so?

The more referenda the merrier. I much prefer a bit of direct democracy rather than being ruled by less than honest Irish politicans and their party whips.

Absolam

Vivisectus wrote: »

Those are a lot of reasonablenesses and certainties, and a lot depends on what you label both a certainty, reasonable, and a person.

That's true.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Which is the reason it is disappointing that you seem unwilling to go deeper into your ideas about potential personhood.

Oh, I didn't say I say I was unwilling to go deeper into my ideas about potential personhood. I didn't say my ideas were any deeper than what I have already expressed though. Which may I'm afraid leave you just as disappointed.

Vivisectus wrote: »

I missed that bit, and it would be a bit of a job to trawl through all the previous posts. Perhaps you can just briefly recap your position in stead of rehashing en entire discussion?

Absent the context of the discussion I think it suffers, however a recap of my position at the time would be "I don't know".

Vivisectus wrote: »

Why is it unreasonable to consider an egg and/or a sperm cell a person?

I feel it's unreasonable because I'm not aware of (or been provided with) a reason they should be considered a person. Which is not to say I'm not open to argument. Are you aware of a reason they should be considered a person?

Vivisectus wrote: »

And when and how does the change occur from unreasonable to reasonable?

I think that from this thread alone it's apparent that what is reasonable is generally subjective?

Vivisectus wrote: »

What is it about cells joining that makes it the defining factor between there being possible personhood, and there being no (reasonable assumption of) possible personhood?

I didn't actually say that. If neither an egg nor a sperm cell may be considered a person, then what may be considered a person must be something that is neither an egg nor a sperm cell. The joining of cells doesn't necessarily define possible personhood, it may just be a point on the line from non personhood to personhood. If you do think it is a defining event though, please don't allow my thoughts to dissuade you from explaining why.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Let us have reasonableness above all things!

Seems reasonable. Well maybe not above all things. Shall we say to a reasonable degree?

Vivisectus wrote: »

And yet your definition of "reasonably certain" is so incredibly specific that in all practical terms it is the same as being unwilling to risk any chance at all, because you feel that we cannot prove it that cells that have come together isn't a person.

I didn't think I defined "reasonably certain" at all? Regardless, I certainly haven't said that I feel we cannot prove that cells that have come together aren't a person. I've said that we should be reasonably certain that this is the case before we decide to destroy them.

Vivisectus wrote: »

And yet you feel that this is not the case when cells have not touched yet: condom-users do not share this burden of proof that you put squarely on anyone who would consider an abortion.

Again, I didn't say that I felt that, but I do see how you jumped to that conclusion. Hopefully my post above clarified it.

Vivisectus wrote: »

I do not see any clear qualitative difference that we can put our finger on. Why is keeping cells from coming together reasonable, and why is stopping them from developing further once they have not reasonable? Or rather, why does stopping cells from coming together and developing into a human being bring reasonable certainty that we have not killed a person, and why does stopping cells from developing into a human being NOT reasonable certainty that we have not killed a person?

You're kind of constructing that argument on the basis of your misapprehension earlier. However, I think what you're trying to put across is that the point where cells divide may not be a more or less appropriate point to decide a person exists than the point where the cells join? In which case I think I'd agree;I think the definition of personhood should probably be closer to the region of consciousness or sensory awareness of some sort.

Vivisectus

Ralphdejones wrote: »

We could make it like the EU ones, where you keep re-voting untill the governent gets the result they want.

Yeah its amazing - after all those referendums about abortion we have seen in Ireland we still have not lost our appetite. They are just so... moorish. We are just spoilt for choice and direct democracy I guess.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Simply existing isn't enough for people,

I agree, simply existing isn't enough for people. Nevertheless, improving the quality of your own life isn't a good enough justification for removing someone elses life entirely.

Cabaal wrote: »

People deserve to have their mental health too and forcing a women to term is knowingly damaging a persons mental health in such an instance. If your happy with "existence" as an acceptable standard for people then issues such as homelessness, poverty etc aren't a problem in your world it seems.
After all the people still exist. Doesn't matter if its a miserable, depressing existence, life destroying experience...you still "exist".
In this case your happy to put a women through one of the most awful, violating experiences a women can go through. But its all ok at the end of the day as she'll still exist.
Thats extremely worrying.

None of those points are arguments I've made, so you really don't need to be extremely worried.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/20/this-story-doesnt-make-sense/

A timeline of events surrounding the refusal of abortion to an asylum seeker who said she had been raped according to versions given by the HSE and The Irish Family Planning Association.

They can’t all be telling the truth.

January 2014: The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 comes into force
Section 9 of the Act provides that it shall be lawful for

- an obstetrician at an appropriate institution (a list of which in the Schedule to the Act includes most hospitals within the State)
- to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended
- where three medical practitioners (an obstetrician and two psychiatrists) having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that there is:

(i) a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and
(ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure.

February 2014: The woman in this case conceives, allegedly due to a rape in her country.

March/April 2014: The woman arrives in Ireland claiming asylum.

Early April 2014: Pregnancy identified during routine refugee medical assessment by Health Service Executive. HSE nurse refers woman to Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) for confirmation of pregnancy and advice.

Pregnancy confirmed by IFPA.

The woman informs IFPA that she is not capable of going through with the pregnancy and could die because of it. IFPA informs woman that abortion is available in England up to 24 weeks but that documentation would have to be arranged in order for her to travel for England and that this process would take six weeks.

A subsequent hospital scan finds that the woman is 8 weeks and 4 days pregnant which even allowing for a six week delay in processing travel documentation should permit an abortion in England within the 24 week time limit. Documentation is completed by IFPA and submitted and the woman believes the process is underway.

Late May 2014 (14-15 weeks pregnant): The woman is informed by an IFPA counsellor that although it is not too late for her to have an abortion in England which it is stated can be carried out at up to 28 weeks (in fact the deadline in England is 24 weeks but the woman is still well within that limit) the cost of the abortion ‘could be’ over €1500 Euros (including travel, abortion and possible overnight stay’) and that the State would not fund these costs.

The woman is told the problem is money.

She does not appear to have been given details of charitable organisations in the United Kingdom, which fund abortions for impoverished women. The woman then states: “I could die because of this pregnancy.I am prepared to kill myself.” That evening, the woman attempts suicide, but is interrupted.

Contact between the IFPA and the woman apparently breaks down after she is moved to a new accommodation centre within the direct provision system.

Around this time, the IFPA make contact with the HSE nurse who initially referred the woman alerting that nurse to her deteriorating mental health. It is unclear whether or not the question of termination under the 2013 Act was discussed in this phone call. It does not appear to have been discussed with the woman by the IFPA.

Mid/Late July: The woman goes to a General Practitioner, explains the situation and states that she is suicidal. She is subsequently admitted to a psychiatric hospital and is interviewed by two psychiatrists. Her pregnancy is confirmed at 24 weeks and 1 day – too far progressed for abortion in the United Kingdom.

July 25- 27: Woman commences thirst and hunger strike.

Care order obtained permitting hydration.

Panel of three experts convened. Current reports ( “the woman’s request for a termination on the basis of suicidality was acceded to” HSE) indicate that the panel was in agreement that the woman was suicidal, and that the pregnancy would be terminated (although initial reports indicated that the expert panel’s decision was not to terminate, due to the objections of the obstetrician on the panel).

July 28: The woman informed that abortion would be carried out the following Monday, August 5


July 30-August 2: The woman is informed that termination to be by way of Caesarean:

According to an interview with her in the Irish Times, she was told “The pregnancy was too far. It was going to have to be a Caesarean. In the world, in the United States, anywhere, at this point it has to be a Caesarean.”

In fact this is not correct.

Methods of late term abortion in the United States and elsewhere involve non-Caesarean procedures such as dilation and evacuation and intact dilation and extraction. Both of these procedures, in contrast to Caesarean section, involve the death of the foetus.

It should however be noted that the medical procedure contemplated by Section 9 of the 2009 Act, which the HSE has stated was assented to, also necessarily involves, by definition, the death of the foetus.

The HSE has stated that “it is important to note that a pregnancy can be terminated by way of delivery through Caesarean section.”.

However Section 9 does not permit ‘termination of pregnancy’. What it permits is ‘a medical procedure in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended’.

A finding that Section 9 was applicable necessarily meant that the woman was entitled not just to a ‘termination’ of pregnancy, but to have that pregnancy terminated in a way involving the death of the foetus. This appears to be something, which has been misunderstood or ignored by the HSE both in the information provided to the woman and in their subsequent statement of this week.

August 5: Following a meeting with an obstetrician, the woman consented to a Caesarean. As stated, irrespective of the fact that the woman was being told that a Caesarean was her only option, it would appear that if a decision had been made under Section 9 she was entitled, by reason of the wording of Section 9, to another method of termination.

Conversely, if a decision had not been so made, she was entitled to be informed of her right of appeal. Neither of these matters appear to have been communicated to her prior to her giving consent to the Caesarean.

August 6: Caesarean carried out.

On the above timetable, the woman should have been over 25 and quite possibly over 26 weeks at the time the procedure was carried out (on the basis that she had been one day over the 24 week limit for obtaining an abortion in England prior to starting her thirst and hunger strike on Friday July 25).

However a report in the Irish Independent describe her as 23-25 weeks at the date of the Caesarean.

August 13: The woman is released from hospital.

August 16 – 21 : The woman’s story breaks in The Irish Independent. Initial reports indicate that the woman’s application under Section 9 of the 2013 Act was refused.

This is subsequently denied by the HSE who state that the application was successful and that the procedure was carried out by Caesarean. As stated above, this appears to be inconsistent with Section 9 itself.

Anyone?

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

And I don't think anyone actually tortured her (with the exception of the putative rapist). She may have been denied what she wanted, and she was certainly horrifically traumatised by her experience, but I don't think that quite rises to the level of torture.

Tell you what, we'll deny you the right to any say about what happens your body for 26 weeks then make you undergo a major surgery and we'll see if you reckon it's a torturous experience.

Cabaal

kylith wrote: »

Tell you what, we'll deny you the right to any say about what happens your body for 26 weeks then make you undergo a major surgery and we'll see if you reckon it's a torturous experience.

I'm sure he won't be against it, sure its not any sort of torture :pac:

kylith

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure he won't be against it, sure its not any sort of torture :pac:

Sure, it's not like she'll suffer any lasting effects like major scarring, or the possibility of uterine rupture. Oh, wait...

Vivisectus

Oh, I didn't say I say I was unwilling to go deeper into my ideas about potential personhood. I didn't say my ideas were any deeper than what I have already expressed though. Which may I'm afraid leave you just as disappointed.

I doubt it, for the simple reasons that you have expressed your views with politeness and frankness.

Absent the context of the discussion I think it suffers, however a recap of my position at the time would be "I don't know".

I feel it's unreasonable because I'm not aware of (or been provided with) a reason they should be considered a person. Which is not to say I'm not open to argument. Are you aware of a reason they should be considered a person?

I am not.

I didn't actually say that. If neither an egg nor a sperm cell may be considered a person, then what may be considered a person must be something that is neither an egg nor a sperm cell. The joining of cells doesn't necessarily define possible personhood, it may just be a point on the line from non personhood to personhood. If you do think it is a defining event though, please don't allow my thoughts to dissuade you from explaining why.

I rather see it as a precursor.

Seems reasonable. Well maybe not above all things. Shall we say to a reasonable degree?

Reasonableness above all things that we can reasonably expect to want reasonableness over. Within reason.

I didn't think I defined "reasonably certain" at all?

My phrasing bad, but I think you got the drift.

Regardless, I certainly haven't said that I feel we cannot prove that cells that have come together aren't a person. I've said that we should be reasonably certain that this is the case before we decide to destroy them.

With you so far, but then I seem to remember you said that this is the reason you feel we should not allow any abortion? It seems perfectly compatible with first trimester terminations to me.

Again, I didn't say that I felt that, but I do see how you jumped to that conclusion. Hopefully my post above clarified it.

Not yet - I still do not understand why you seem to be against first trimester terminations. Unless I got that wrong of course - would not be the first time, and I can clear quite tall conclusions from a standing start without even limbering up on occasion.

You're kind of constructing that argument on the basis of your misapprehension earlier. However, I think what you're trying to put across is that the point where cells divide may not be a more or less appropriate point to decide a person exists than the point where the cells join? In which case I think I'd agree;I think the definition of personhood should probably be closer to the region of consciousness or sensory awareness of some sort.

But then we can reasonably assume that personhood is physically impossible until around week 12?

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure he won't be against it, sure its not any sort of torture :pac:

And he'll be alive at the end of it, all other side effects are irrelevant.

On the IFPA I understand doctors and councillors aren't allowed under law to refer women to abortion clinics in the UK or facilitate them in traveling. So the IFPA might not refer the woman to a charity to help her travel, they might have received advice that this would be outside their legal limits. From reading accounts of the women who travelled to terminate because of FFA they had to arrange everything themselves, doctors in Ireland did not refer them to specific clinics in the UK because of the abortion law here.

So you can travel, if you can organise and fund it yourself, and you can kill your unborn baby which supposedly has constitutional protection as long as you don't do it on these shores. We're a great little country.

Obliq

kylith wrote: »

Tell you what, we'll deny you the right to any say about what happens your body for 26 weeks then make you undergo a major surgery and we'll see if you reckon it's a torturous experience.

That couldn't be as torturous as having an unwelcome fetus growing inside you with all the physical changes that take place during pregnancy and the fact that it was forced on you in the first place. He'd have to have been implanted with a rapidly expanding growth (with equal rights to his own), completely against his will, to make it comparable. Pretty sure he'd be screaming "take it out of me" then, like a normal person.

kylith

Obliq wrote: »

That couldn't be as torturous as having an unwelcome fetus growing inside you with all the physical changes that take place during pregnancy and the fact that it was forced on you in the first place. He'd have to have been implanted with a rapidly expanding growth (with equal rights to his own), completely against his will, to make it comparable. Pretty sure he'd be screaming "take it out of me" then, like a normal person.

I really wish there was a male version of pregnancy because some men really don't seem to be able to grasp what it's like. Any analogy you try gets written off as equating babies to parasites, but that's the closest you can get - a tapeworm that gets to weigh 4kg and has more right to your body than you do.

Obliq

kylith wrote: »

I really wish there was a male version of pregnancy because some men really don't seem to be able to grasp what it's like. Any analogy you try gets written off as equating babies to parasites, but that's the closest you can get - a tapeworm that gets to weigh 4kg and has more right to your body than you do.

Exactly. It shouldn't be so hard to explain that being FORCED to have growing inside you something that has equal rights to your very existence would be torture.

But sure, what do we know eh? We've been told quite clearly by people who have never/will never be in this position that it's only a lifestyle issue. Sure wouldn't you count yourself lucky to still be alive, even with the forced pregnancy/forced feeding/forced operation? :mad:

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

So you can travel, if you can organise and fund it yourself, and you can kill your unborn baby which supposedly has constitutional protection as long as you don't do it on these shores. We're a great little country.

and yet some people try label it as murder, its clearly no such thing under our laws.

An abortion is clearly thought out and yet its still not murder because you can be fined for it even if you carry it out in Ireland and break the law. Last time I checked I won't be fined if I shot and killed somebody after putting planning into how I'd shoot them.

It kind of puts massive holes in the usage of the word "murder" by some people as very clearly the Irish state does not see a fetus as equal to a actual human being.

Obliq

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
— Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

I take it all back. Looks like Ireland is entitled to the get out clause bolded here above........

This allows state parties to pass domestic laws that permit acts of torture that they believe are within the lawful sanctions clause

Ah yeah, that's fine so. It's only Irish state sanctioned torture - it's probably much less distressing because it's SO. DAMN. RIGHTEOUS.