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
-
aloyisious wrote: »I hope she never becomes aware of this thread.
Because she's so vulnerable, yes I agree. But unless we talk about it and put a stop to it, there will be more cause célèbre with more incredibly vulnerable women at the hands of the state machine. The media leaks. The public outcry. The full internal enquiry.
What will we do, when the country is up in arms about what is the acceptable inhumanity here? Expose this woman in every shocking way as her inhuman treatment is forced on her and sicken people about what is done in the name of our constitution, or on the other side, let abortions happen here, sickening those who see the killing of an unformed human life to be more inhuman.
I don't know the answer, that's for sure.0 -
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.
I think if you apply any sort of test based on cognition or response to stimulus, you'd end up with "personhood" setting in someplace more like the Swedish term limits for "at patient's request" abortion (18 weeks, I think largely motivated by "safe lower bound for viability"), than the French one (approximately first trimester, IIRC).
(Even with the proviso that we're only considering entities that are genetically/biologically human, otherwise adult great apes are shoving their way to the head of the queue. Cloned Neanderthals or Australopithecines left as an exercise for another most.)0 -
Ralphdejones wrote: »I'm asking biologically, when does a human life begin ?
Biologically, logically and grammatically, singular a human life certainly cannot be said to have begun before the second week after conception, due to the possibility of subsequent monozygotic cleavage (potentially) resulting in multiple individuals.
(Usual "life-begins-at-conception" responses to this are a) silence/change of topic, b) loud shouting and flailing of arms, and/or c) "philosophical mulligan in the event of twins".)0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Biologically, logically and grammatically, singular a human life certainly cannot be said to have begun before the second week after conception
(Usual "life-begins-at-conception" responses to this are a) silence/change of topic, b) loud shouting and flailing of arms, and/or c) "philosophical mulligan in the event of twins".)
So what these people say is false?Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”0 -
This sort of line of argument was equally evident in aftermath of the Halappanavar case. Using the handy medical diagnostic instrument of "hindsight", "risk to the life of the pregnant woman" are judged on a "no harm, no foul" basis if there's no fatality. And of course, if there is a fatality, blame it on mysterious "other unforeseeable factors or failures in treatment" -- as if to suggest those are alien elements to anyone's medical prognosis. Then, naturally, blaming the people complaining about such an eventuality as "exploiting" it.I have such a massive problem with how avoidable her level of desperation was, but because it has now resulted in the (happy?) delivery of a live baby, it was apparently ok to push her to this limit.
I'd call it another Catch-22, but surely that's failing to index-link for massive catch inflation, at this point.0 -
Advertisement
-
aloyisious wrote: »I hope she never becomes aware of this thread.
Lets hope her child never does either, given the amount of people on this thread that would much prefer she had been aborted.0 -
So what these people say is false?
I don't know These People from Adam, but it certainly seems to be. And googling, it also seems to be "extensively quotemined by foetal personhood extremists". Funny, that.
Did you have an actual counterargument, or just an attempt at an appeal to authority? Because if your proposal is to leave it to scientific consensus, I'm certainly game.0 -
So what these people say is false?
If you read what you are responding to, you can see that they are wrong yourself!
Look: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception."
is wrong because a human life certainly cannot be said to have begun before the second week after conception, due to the possibility of subsequent monozygotic cleavage (potentially) resulting in multiple individuals.
So the quote you are posting is wrong, since at conception there is only one cell, one single human life according to your quote. But at birth, there may be twins! Where'd that extra soul come from?
Maybe that is why one twin is always evil - no soul!0 -
Ralphdejones wrote: »Lets hope her child never does either, given the amount of people on this thread that would much prefer she had been aborted.
Because having silenced the woman's wish not to be used as a incubator for the product of rape as a weapon of war, the next logical step is to silence anyone criticising her subsequent treatment by the organs of the State, right?0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Because having silenced the woman's wish not to be used as a incubator for the product of rape as a weapon of war, the next logical step is to silence anyone criticising her subsequent treatment by the organs of the State, right?
Wrong. Two innocent lives alive today. Neither of who did anything wrong. Neither of whom should be killed or stigmatised.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »I don't know These People from Adam,
You weren't asked if you know the people listed.alaimacerc wrote: »but it certainly seems to be
On what basis does it seem to be false?alaimacerc wrote: »Did you have an actual counterargument, or just an attempt at an appeal to authority?
I've listed the names and the qualifications of those who testify that life begins at conception.
Are you saying that these people with their qualification do not have the authority to make the assertions of their testimony? If so, why?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »If you read what you are responding to, you can see that they are wrong yourself
Their testimony isn't wrong.“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
Their testimony was given under oath.
The assertions of their testimony was cross examined in the United States Senate.
After the testimony was heard and cross examined, the United States Senate issued a report which statedPhysicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings0 -
Perhaps I should have said "yours" for strict clarity: your point of view, presumably differing from the "abortion as killing someone" one cited.Presumably not me what?
"Illegal activities" is a somewhat broad category, no? Burying hundreds of people alive and not paying your TV licence are both "illegal activities", but this can't be adduced as strong evidence of deep underlying similarities.Hmm, broadly speaking they would both seem to fall into the category of illegal activities in Irish law, if that's what you mean?
Abortion is not defined as "homicide with mitigating circumstances". Zygotes, embryos, and foetuses are not defined as "second-class persons". (Or third-class, since Irish law's increasingly firming up around the interpretation that pre-implantation zygs and early-stage embs are not "rights-bearing entities" at all, given SC rulings and now the primary legislation to that effect.)
I'd not be half as "fascinated" with your opinion if you didn't keep advancing arguments that clearly depend crucially on it, and then plucking it out of our reach, Tantalus-like, when attempting to tease out the detail!Flattered as I am by your fascination with my opinion, I'm afraid I used the word 'probably' because I'm not aware of a truly reasonable ethical compromise; the closest that seems to have come about so far is the situation that pertains at the moment. But if I come across one that 'dazzles' I'll be sure to let you know.0 -
Did someone die and make you the Lord Chief Justice of which questions are and aren't to be answered? Because you're certainly dodging mine.You weren't asked if you know the people listed.
In case you were somehow confused as my to meaning (perhaps mistaking me for someone that only trusts the judgement of personal acquaintances?): I've never heard of these people, have no reason to put any particular faith in their opinions, and most certainly reject them as any sort of "authorities" to supersede logic, biology, and the ability to count past one.
On what basis does it seem to be true? I've already laid out the argument; you're the person trying to brush it aside with foetal-personhood-advocacy argument from authority.On what basis does it seem to be false?
So, as I also asked: are you playing "best authorities with the best credentials wins"? Because otherwise I'm not clear why you think the opinion of a half-dozen randomers is a good replacement for being able to argue the merits of one in its own right.I've listed the names and the qualifications of those who testify that life begins at conception.0 -
Ralphdejones wrote: »Wrong. Two innocent lives alive today. Neither of who did anything wrong. Neither of whom should be killed or stigmatised.
And you believe that any advocacy for any sort of more liberal access to abortion, in line with the UN's standards for such, for example, constitutes such "stigmatisation", and thus is to be silenced. Thus, not so much "wrong" as "precisely right". Right?0 -
Not a great deal, no. The SC is well capable of striking down statute that it seems not compliant with the constitution -- and has done so. The problem here was not so much that there was primarily legislation that wasn't compliant with BnhE, as there was an absence of such legislation in cases where the SC foresaw a need. Which certainly did give rise to certain "practical difficulties", just not in quite the way you've described.Well, given much of the discussion has revolved around recent legislation introduced in order to make Irish legislation compliant with the Constitution, perhaps you would have seen more value in the statement, it wasn't but now is compliant with the Constitution? Or to put it in your terms, "I wasn't what I am but I am what I wasn't", if that helps.I'd only object to your imaginative extrapolation; doubtless you find it satisfying to make arguments on others behalf that you can easily deride, but I'm happy enough to stick with making my own arguments thanks.
Or starting to make them, declaring "Parthian Shot!" just when things are about to come to the crunch, and proceeding rapidly back the other way!
Anyway, in summary: where a right exists in someone's own reading of BnhE, in the interpreting body's ruling on UNCHR rights, or the ECHR, but isn't vindicated in Irish law (or Irish practice, come to that), and they complain "my rights are being violated!", it's not a helpful line of argument to say "no, they're not, they merely don't exist". And much less to repeatedly make this same particular semantic/legalistic quibble, in isolation from many (many, many!) other possible such. (Not that I especially want you to be making every possible one, or even a representative sample on a "balanced" basis!)0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I've never heard of these people, have no reason to put any particular faith in their opinions, and most certainly reject them as any sort of "authorities" to supersede logic, biology, and the ability to count past one.
You weren't asked whether or not you know the people giving their testimony.
And your qualifications to adjudge the validity of their testimony is what?
What are your qualifications?
What public bodies have you publicly testified to with regard to the beginning of human life?
Can you supply a link showing the testimony that you provided? If so, we await your link.alaimacerc wrote: »On what basis does it seem to be true? I've already laid out the argument; you're the person trying to brush it aside with foetal-personhood-advocacy argument from authority.
I'm not brushing anything away. I've listed the names and testimony of witnesses to a public body of enquiry.
I have listed what they stated to that public enquiry.
The veracity of the testimony given has been accepted by the United States Senate.
I have listed the conclusion made by the United States Senate, following those hearings and cross examination.
Feel free to link public testimony from speakers listing their qualifications and when/where this testimony was given, which contradicts the conclusions of the United States Senate hearings.alaimacerc wrote: ».
So, as I also asked: are you playing "best authorities with the best credentials wins"? Because otherwise I'm not clear why you think the opinion of a half-dozen randomers is a good replacement for being able to argue the merits of one in its own right.
I await your counterargument0 -
Belgium has universal jurisdiction (for various purposes). Have you noticed them invading anyone... unusual lately, or going on any massive armament sprees?Are you suggesting that we should legislate to limit peoples right to travel based on the suspicion that they may commit an act abroad which is legal there but not legal here, or that we should invest in upscaling our military so that we can attempt to enforce our laws on other jurisdictions?0 -
I await an argument for me to counter.I await your counterargument
Or to be precise, I've already made the argument: monozygotic twins (triplets and quads, even!) were a single cell at time of conception. For multiple rounds of cell division thereafter, they were a single comingled, undifferentiated ball of cells. Please explain how in each of these separate cases, "a human life" began at conception in any way that's biologically or philosophically meaningful. It remains for you to make any sort of response beyond "these people I found on an extremist anti-abortion site say otherwise!" Show your working (and not your googling).0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I've already made the argument: monozygotic twins (triplets and quads, even!) were a single cell at time of conception. For multiple rounds of cell division thereafter, they were a single comingled, undifferentiated ball of cells.
The public testimony of accredited experts, to a public body, states that conception marks the creation of human life contradicts your argument that life doesn't begin at conception.
The United States Senate has accepted that testimony and it has concluded that the overwhelming evidence shows that conception marks the point of the creation of human life.
Readers can choose to accept the United States Senate conclusion or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wouldn't that make it a "reasonable hypothesis", at worst, rather than a "plausible fiction"? I'm sure there's indeed a range of opinion on this. Apparently very large proportions of the population agree with abortion in cases of rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality, and so on. A large number apparently agree with abortion on "health" grounds -- they just want "real health grounds, as opposed those shameless Brits and their nasty fakey 'health' ground". But I'm not at all sure that a decent chunk don't want it on the "availability" basis of "costs a grand or so, so the Lower Orders don't go crazy with it, not happening anywhere we have to actually deal with it, and still socially shameful enough to prevent people bragging about it in a triumphalist feminist manner". (Maybe one of the minor Atlantic islands can be repurposed to the same general effect, as and when GB disappears into a crack in the Earth's crust (or, leaves the EU)).I think that's a plausible fiction that is thrown out occasionally by pro-choice advocates who simply don't like to think that there may actually be a substantial number of people who don't agree with varying degrees of abortion availability.
Not many people say "yes, I'm a hypocrite", or "I psychologically compartmentalise on an epic scale". One has to make conclusions about such things on the available data.There's no actual substantial basis for that statement though; how many people (or politicians, or Supreme Court judges) do you think would actually say they want abortion somewhere handy, just not right here?
It's hard to believe because there's so little evidence for it, principally.I think it's another similar line trotted out because it's hard to imagine that there may be a majority of people in Ireland who actually don't believe abortion should be practiced (in varying degrees).0 -
"A human life" was the proposition being made. Don't be trying to shift the goalposts back again -- they've been back and forth a couple of times already. Please cite any actual rebuttal of the argument I made, from that testimony or otherwise. Otherwise, you're just making an ad hoc appeal to authority, without even any clarity on what basis "authority" in such matters is to be assessed.The public testimony of accredited experts, to a public body, states that conception marks the creation of human life contradicts your argument that life doesn't begin at conception.
Readers will note your unwillingness or inability to either address the points I made in the terms I made them, or even to accept the counter-offer of determination on the basis of "most and best-credentialed authorities as to the biological and philosophical facts".Readers can choose to accept the United States Senate conclusion or not.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »"A human life" was the proposition being made. Don't be trying to shift the goalposts back again -- they've been back and forth a couple of times already.
No goalposts have been shifted. On my part.
Conception marks the creation of human life.
You've been given the testimony which asserts this.
You've been given the conclusion made by the United States Senate supporting the assertion, after the testimony has been heard and cross examined.alaimacerc wrote: »Readers will note your unwillingness or inability to either address the points I made in the terms I made them, or even to accept the counter-offer of determination on the basis of "most and best-credentialed authorities as to the biological and philosophical facts".
Readers will note your unwillingness or inability to supply linked testimony from accredited professionals which contradicts or refutes the public testimony given to the United States Senate.0 -
No goalposts have been shifted.
Conception marks the creation of human life.
You've been given the testimony.
You've been given the conclusion made by the United States Senate after the testimony has been heard and cross examined.
Readers will note your unwillingness or inability to supply linked testimony from accredited professionals which contradicts or refutes the public testimony given to the United States Senate.
The testimony is from people who already had Anti-Abortion stances, and is from a hearing from 1981, which was for a bill which never made it into law.
Their testimony was their opinion which was to try and sway the Senate to pass the "Human Life Bill" which was formulated by anti-abortion politicians, and was "given credence" by medical professionals who were already anti-abortion. Their testimony is as good as you claiming their words as your own.0 -
You have just that past post moved the proposition from "a human life" to "human life". Pick one, and stick with it.No goalposts have been shifted.
"Your part" was to chime in on a discussion framed in the one set of terms, following at least one shift by your co-debaters in the opposite direction earlier. And then to try to change it back again, without acknowledgement of doing so.On my part.
Gametes are "human" -- what other species would they be? They're most certainly "life" -- what other condition of matter might be a feasible alternative? Conception isn't the "creation" of life; it's simply the phase change between the haploid and the diploid stages of the life cycle of the organism. I've already explained to you why neither is it the start of "individuation", in any necessitated sense.Conception marks the creation of human life.
You've been given the actual argument that refutes this. Before you ever cited it. Were you not able to follow it? I'm entirely willing to slow-walk wherever's necessary. Were you not able to follow -- or did you even bother to find? -- the arguments your "experts" made, so as to use them to demolish my "uncredentialised" ones? What I'm not willing to do, however, is to engage in an exercise where you ignore the actual points made, and say "Look over there! Experts!"You've been given the testimony which asserts this.Readers will note your unwillingness or inability to supply linked testimony from accredited professionals which contradicts or refutes the public testimony given to the United States Senate.
Unwillingness. On grounds that:- You've failed to address the points that have already been made;
- You've completely failed to acknowledge any basis on which you'd accept "accredited professionals" as superseding, in turn these peeps;
- Accordingly, this is just a time-wasting exercise in Pigeon Chess, where you advance no meaningful line of argument, but simply move from one empty objection to the other, at no point backing any of them up.
0 -
I don't think so? The clause states the subsection may not be used to prevent travel between Ireland and another state. It doesn't restrict that impediment to only when the mothers life is at risk. If the mothers health is at risk, or if there is no risk whatsoever, or if the person is not even a(n expectant) mother, the government is impeded from using the subsection to prevent her (or him, since it's not restricted to women either) from travelling to another state. I think you may have misread the constitutional amendment. It's here if you'd like to reread it. Article 40, which it amends, is here in full. You may note there is no mention of risk to the life of mothers.That constitutional impediment is only relevent when the life of the mother is at risk. It does not apply to cases were merely the health of the mother is a risk. It most certainly does not apply when the mother simply wishes to be not be pregnant anymore.
I would suggest that any legislation proposing to do so could be challenged simply by reference to the above constitutional amendment.So, I would again suggest that there is nothing in law, constitutional or otherwise prevent the government enacting legislation to prosecute those women that travel abroad to procure an abortion, the caveat being, she. They do so and their life is not at risk.
Article 3 of the constitution specifically states that "the laws enacted by the Parliament established bythis Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution", as a result of which the Irish state only asserts universal jurisdiction for murder and manslaughter, which as you have been keen to point out, do not cover abortion. So to prosecute a citizen for abortion outside the State would be unlawful as the event took place outside "the area of application".As I mentiond before, Ireland does not need the cash or the will to enforce its laws I other countries. It can simply enforced its will and laws on its citizens, irrespective of where the 'offense' took place.0 -
Well no, the constitution doesn't place any requirement on doctors. The state is required by the constitution to acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantee in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. That duty on the State, as enacted in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, requires the doctor to save a pregnant womans life even if doing so ends an unborn life, whilst having regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable. So in specific circumstances a doctor must prefer a pregnant womans life over the life of an unborn.This simply isn't true - the doctor has a constitutional requirement to consider the life of the foetus as equal to the life of the patient (the woman).
I'm not.Unless you are arguing that when a woman has been judged to be suicidal and a panel has decided that she can have an abortion that at this point they can disregard the rights of the foetus, in which case I would agree that this should be the case, but that it is not clear that it actually is the case.
If you are saying it should be the case, then you are saying there should be a sliding scale of right to life against quality of life, I just chose a starker example (to your mind) than that of a foetus with no brain.That's rather an unfair comparison. If you are unwilling to admit that a foetus with a fatal anomaly (such as being missing a brain) should be accorded less rights (when weighed against the life or health of the mother) compared to say a healthy foetus, then debate on the point is probably best avoided.
Well no, it gives the foetus the same right to life as a woman whose life is not at risk. And the reason is that whilst it's easy to say it should not be the case with a foetus with no brain, that makes it easier to say it should not be the case with a foetus with a low life expectancy, like one with Downs, or a heart condition. Or one with a stunted limb, that's poor quality of life right there, isn't it? Then maybe one with brown eyes, cos both both parents have blue... But that sort of response is heading into Godwin territory, which is unacceptable argumentation.The health and quality of life of both foetus and woman are relevant, not just whether they are technically alive or not. Right now the constitution forces doctors to give a brain dead foetus with a pulse the same rights as a fully grown woman.
That's pretty much how both sides of that argument have always gone.
Actually, you said she was mentally incompetent, I only asked if it is appropriate to allow a person who is sufficiently mentally distressed as to be assessed as suicidal to make life and death decisions about another person. Mentally distressed is not the same as assumed to be irrational. However that's not the crux of the point; if the woman is mentally competent to do so, she should be allowed to make decisions about her own medical care, up to and including life or death decisions. If she is not mentally competent, then those decisions should be made by a medical professional.You implied that a suicidal woman is to be assumed to be irrational and that all medical decisions should be made on her behalf by a medical professional.
Regardless of whether she is mentally competent, the medical care of her foetus/child is not the same as the medical care of herself; the law does not offer her a choice of whether or not to kill her child (whether born or unborn), nor do I think it should.
That's because you're thinking in terms of gaming the system; a method that is designed to ensure a womans life is preserved if the life of her unborn child threatens it isn't designed to be a way for someone to get an abortion if they really really want one, so sometimes it will present difficulties in doing so. The method only does what it's supposed to.The catch is that the only way a woman can get control of her pregnancy and terminate it is to become suicidal and (if I'm interpreting you correctly) no longer have any say in how that termination should be carried out. So to get control of her own body she has to put herself in a situation where you suggest she is no longer to be trusted to make decisions for herself, and thus she loses all control over her body again.
I didn't say that was the purpose of the system, only that it was a (perhaps serendipitous) result.Or, rather some people will come to live who would not otherwise have done so. Your argument could equally be used to ban contraception - after all, it would mean that some people would live who would otherwise not.
So it's ok for you to be poetic about making women invisible by looking through them to focus on the foetus, but I can't even say they're nearby? Nor do I recall saying I was uncomfortable about them being embedded in womens bodies; it's more the unwarranted expulsion of them that I'm 'uncomfortable' with.Nearby? They are not just "nearby", they are deeply embedded in the woman's body. Although you do seem rather uncomfortable acknowledging that fact.0 -
I think saying they removed suicidal ideation by termination is as acceptable as saying they treated suicidal ideation with termination. It may even be better as it infers that the treatment was successful.Kiwi in IE wrote: »They have given a woman who would choose to die rather than continue with a pregnancy an abortion.Removal of cause more than treatment.
I 100% agree; but I think the spuriousness is in how you've framed the argument; you can't treat suicide, and I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that psychiatrists are trying to tell people they shouldn't think abortion is a treatment for suicide in general.Kiwi in IE wrote: »This silly argument that 'psychiatrists say abortion is not a treatment for suicide' makes little sense. Not generally no, not all suicidal people are pregnant and not all pregnant suicidal people are suicidal because they are pregnant, so of course it is not a 'treatment'.
I would be interested in whether most psychiatrists agree that termination of a pregnancy is an appropriate treatment (or whether removal of the pregnancy as the cause is an appropriate treatment) of suicidal ideation as a result of pregnancy. I think psychiatrists these days are inclined to shy away from the physical interventionist methods of earlier psychiatric treatments, and focus on psychiatric or chemical solutions to problems.
I would think most psychiatrists would say that winning the lotto ameliorated the underlying cause of their suicidal ideation. And that whilst that symptom was no longer evident, winning the lotto did not remove the underlying cause for them feeling suicidal where others would not, and that that cause was still in need of being addressed. Which might well be analogous with the pregnancy situation.Kiwi in IE wrote: »A person may have lost their job, their house, have unmanageable debt, collectors coming after them and be about to commit suicide when they win the lotto. Their problems are gone and they re evaluate their perceived need to commit suicide and decide they now want to live. How many psychiatrists would then say that winning the lotto is a treatment for suicidal ideation? That's how ridiculous the argument is.
So in short; there may be more to the suicidal ideation than the existence of the pregnancy, and a termination may not actually solve the problem.Kiwi in IE wrote: »Siutational depression and organic or chemical depression are different causes of the same sypmtoms. Sometimes if a person is predisposed to chemical depression, episodes are set off by negative circumstance and sometimes they happen at times when there is no apparent trigger. Situational depression and resulting suicidal ideation occur when the person perceives their life circumstances to be so unbearable that they do not want to live. In these cases the removal of the situation/s can cause the depression and suicidal ideation to resolve. However psychiatrists are not going to consider that every individual patient's particular resolved circumstance is now considered to be a 'treatment' for depression.0 -
So presumably it would not be my point of view that we count foetuses as citizens? Then no it would not.alaimacerc wrote: »Perhaps I should have said "yours" for strict clarity: your point of view, presumably differing from the "abortion as killing someone" one cited.
Or so presumably it would not be my point of view that it's a f***ed up country where you can kill someone to make yourself feel better about a crime that someone else entirely committed against you?
In which case it is; what kind of country lets you kill someone else just because a different person commited a crime against you?
You posited that they are are entirely different categories of activity. I just pointed out one category they both fall into.alaimacerc wrote: »"Illegal activities" is a somewhat broad category, no? Burying hundreds of people alive and not paying your TV licence are both "illegal activities", but this can't be adduced as strong evidence of deep underlying similarities.
Didn't everyone already agree that the relevant offense is the intentional destruction of unborn human life?alaimacerc wrote: »Abortion is not defined as "homicide with mitigating circumstances". Zygotes, embryos, and foetuses are not defined as "second-class persons".
I didn't think I'd actually advanced any argument that depended on my via media golden mean judgement on the thorny matter of a reasonable ethical compromise between medical services effectively railroading any women/girl into keeping a rapists fetus if the women/girl doesn't want it, and killing someone to make yourself feel better about a crime that someone else entirely committed against you.alaimacerc wrote: »I'd not be half as "fascinated" with your opinion if you didn't keep advancing arguments that clearly depend crucially on it, and then plucking it out of our reach, Tantalus-like, when attempting to tease out the detail!
However, if you point it out, I'll attempt to reframe it so that it doesn't crucially depend upon the above.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, in summation, whilst Irish law isn't entirely compliant with its international treaty obligations, it is now compliant with the Constitution?alaimacerc wrote: »Not a great deal, no. The SC is well capable of striking down statute that it seems not compliant with the constitution -- and has done so. The problem here was not so much that there was primarily legislation that wasn't compliant with BnhE, as there was an absence of such legislation in cases where the SC foresaw a need. Which certainly did give rise to certain "practical difficulties", just not in quite the way you've described.
Was there a particular point I retreated from too hastily in your opinion? I don't think your ennui at it quite justifies making new ones on my behalf, nonetheless.alaimacerc wrote: »Or starting to make them, declaring "Parthian Shot!" just when things are about to come to the crunch, and proceeding rapidly back the other way!
Why not? If they don't exist, one shouldn't really complain about their lack of vindication, one should complain about their lack of existence. It's helpful to know exactly what it is you want to complain about surely.alaimacerc wrote: »Anyway, in summary: where a right exists in someone's own reading of BnhE, in the interpreting body's ruling on UNCHR rights, or the ECHR, but isn't vindicated in Irish law (or Irish practice, come to that), and they complain "my rights are being violated!", it's not a helpful line of argument to say "no, they're not, they merely don't exist".
Well, if it's boring you, feel free not to read it.alaimacerc wrote: »And much less to repeatedly make this same particular semantic/legalistic quibble, in isolation from many (many, many!) other possible such. (Not that I especially want you to be making every possible one, or even a representative sample on a "balanced" basis!)0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement