Abortion Discussion

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I value the life of a person more than I value the health of a person.
A foetus (and I know you believe it ought not to be) has personhood in the eyes of the law in Ireland to a limited degree; a position I agree with.
The right of that person to life cannot be overriden by the right of another person to health; a position I also agree with.
The right of a not yet born person to life can be overriden by the right of a born person to life; a position I also agree with, as well as the notion that a born person should (if of sound mind) be permitted to abdicate their right to life (insofar as not availing of live saving options) in favour of saving the life of an unborn (or born) person if they choose.
Does that help you understand my actual values?
Feel free to add your own; we can all have a show and tell!

Following that, if you want to return the discussion to 'when does the foetus become a person' (I kind of suspect you do), I still hold the same position I held the last time we discussed it; I don't know. I'd be reasonably comfortable with narrowing the window to somewhere between five and twenty five weeks, and I have yet to be entirely convinced by any arguments more specific thus far.

but you statistically only have that view because you hold on to because you assume that some iron age fairy tails are true. The most civilised parts of the planet have moved on and Ireland will too the next time its asked hopefully.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but you statistically only have that view because you hold on to because you assume that some iron age fairy tails are true.

That doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. Maybe try rephrasing? Also.. just pre-empting, maybe try without any assumptions as well?

silverharp wrote: »

The most civilised parts of the planet have moved on and Ireland will too the next time its asked hopefully.

Ireland is one of the most civilised parts of the planet, unless you define 'civilised' as being a culture that is happy to kill it's unborn young without good cause. Obviously, I don't....

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

That doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. Maybe try rephrasing? Also.. just pre-empting, maybe try without any assumptions as well?

Ireland is one of the most civilised parts of the planet, unless you define 'civilised' as being a culture that is happy to kill it's unborn young without good cause. Obviously, I don't....

religious people cant be reasoned with on this issue and secular countries move on. Ireland is civilised to a point but its not the best. If you look at the top cities in the world to live in they are in countries like France , Germany , Denmark , Canada , Australia and New Zealand. have a look at their abortion laws and contrast with Irleand

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

religious people cant be reasoned with on this issue and secular countries move on. Ireland is civilised to a point but its not the best. If you look at the top cities in the world to live in they are in countries like France , Germany , Denmark , Canada , Australia and New Zealand. have a look at their abortion laws and contrast with Irleand

Is that a rephrasing of what you were trying to say?
Lot's of people can't be reasoned with on this issue; there are more than one or two unreasonable people who won't accept anything other than 'my body my choice', and I bet they are not all that religious....
As to whether Ireland is 'the best' there's a few people who'd disagree with you, some without even waiting to see what your criteria for 'the best' is. Personally, I'll settle for it's good enough in some regards.
When ti comes to the top cities in the world....
Dublin is 46 in Global Finances Top 50
And it's No 2 in Business Insiders Top 21
It's No 34 on the Mercer Quality of Living Survey
But I don't think many of the surveys are based on how abhorrent their abortion laws are to you, so I guess it's just a matter of criteria. Some people seem to think Ireland isn't a bad place to live, so I suppose they reckon it's at least sufficiently civilised for their tastes....

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I value the life of a person more than I value the health of a person.
A foetus (and I know you believe it ought not to be) has personhood in the eyes of the law in Ireland to a limited degree; a position I agree with.

Do you agree that that law was brought into being under the impulsion of religious and not scientific forces?

And should women who have a miscarriage be under some obligation to prove that they didn't cause that miscarriage by careless behaviour? After all, when a person is found dead, there is some onus on the carers to prove they didn't cause that death, albeit by mere negligence.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Is that a rephrasing of what you were trying to say?
Lot's of people can't be reasoned with on this issue; there are more than one or two unreasonable people who won't accept anything other than 'my body my choice', and I bet they are not all that religious....
As to whether Ireland is 'the best' there's a few people who'd disagree with you, some without even waiting to see what your criteria for 'the best' is. Personally, I'll settle for it's good enough in some regards.
When ti comes to the top cities in the world....
Dublin is 46 in Global Finances Top 50
And it's No 2 in Business Insiders Top 21
It's No 34 on the Mercer Quality of Living Survey
But I don't think many of the surveys are based on how abhorrent their abortion laws are to you, so I guess it's just a matter of criteria. Some people seem to think Ireland isn't a bad place to live, so I suppose they reckon it's at least sufficiently civilised for their tastes....

If you take an imaginary god out of the picture then one is left with the entirely reasonable concept that one owns one's body, who else would possible own it so yeah people are funny that way that they would be stubborn about it.
Good enough isnt good enough the best cities in the world to live in tend to be more secular the worst tend to be religious.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you agree that that law was brought into being under the impulsion of religious and not scientific forces?

I don't; I'd say the Constitutional amendments were impelled by the moral position of the majority of the electorate (though I'd happily agree that many people's morals are guided by their religion), and the legal enactments were impelled by the rulings of the Supreme Court and the European Courts obliging the government to properly facilitate those Constitutional obligations.
As for 'scientific forces'; morality is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. Our morality must of neccesity expand and adapt as our scientific force grows and enables us to accomplish what previously couldn't be conceived of, and we may use science to do moral and immoral things, but science will never determine what is moral; that is up to us.
Further; one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Further; one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith.

The Muslim world proves that statement to be wanting. Where in the world will a rape victim have a greater chance of being charged with immoral activity?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I don't; I'd say the Constitutional amendments were impelled by the moral position of the majority of the electorate (though I'd happily agree that many people's morals are guided by their religion)

How old are you? I remember the bishops and priests in the pulpits instructing parishioners on exactly how to vote (a very dubious action, even by their own rules, given the ban on priests getting involved in politics). Do you deny that that not only happened but was the norm across Ireland?

What groups or associations were behind that, in your view? Or do you think priests were being told by the laity what they should preach about??

It was a religion-driven piece of legislation. There was no secret about it - the church didn't feel the need to hide its manoeuvring at the time, and to deny it now means you must be either seriously ill-informed or lying.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

If you take an imaginary god out of the picture then one is left with the entirely reasonable concept that one owns one's body, who else would possible own it so yeah people are funny that way that they would be stubborn about it.

So if you take an imaginary god out of the picture religious people can be reasoned with? But you agree that there are non religious people that can't. Interesting.

silverharp wrote: »

Good enough isnt good enough the best cities in the world to live in tend to be more secular the worst tend to be religious.

Irish cities seem to be good enough to be considered amongst the best for those surveys? Certainly good enough for me... And I have a feeling that more than a few of the people who move to Irish cities think they're good enough. Does that disparity with your point of view worry you at all?

volchitsa

silverharp wrote: »

The Muslim world proves that statement to be wanting. Where in the world will a rape victim have a greater chance of being charged with immoral activity?

Absolam is misrepresenting things (so what else is new?) - man is perfectly capable of developing a moral sense in the absence of religion. The problem is when a religion sets itself up as the arbiter of what morality is. That is what happens when a rape victim is stoned for immorality - the religion involved has substituted its own misogyny for genuine moral sense. And convinced the population that this is not evil. It's no surprise that religions tend to be very keen on educating children. What a chance for propaganda.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

How old are you? I remember the bishops and priests in the pulpits instructing parishioners on exactly how to vote (a very dubious action, even by their own rules, given the ban on priests getting involved in politics). Do you deny that that not only happened but was the norm across Ireland?

Oh, reasonably old. How about you?
I remember the priests and bishops telling people not to use contraception and all sorts of other things too; I can't say it was dubious given that they think God wants them to shepherd his flock and advise them on how to keep His laws. But I did notice people often decide for themselves regardless of what they're told.

volchitsa wrote: »

What groups or associations were behind that, in your view? Or do you think priests were being told by the laity what they should preach about??

Are you honestly asking what groups or associations were behind the Church telling people what the Churches position was on a moral issue?

volchitsa wrote: »

It was a religion-driven piece of legislation. There was no secret about it - the church didn't feel the need to hide its manoeuvring at the time, and to deny it now means you must be either seriously ill-informed or lying.

Would you like to specify your 'it'? Just so you're clear. And I don't think the Church should hide it's manouvering on any issue; I'm surprised you do. If the Church wants to take a position on an issue, I rather think they should be as free to speak as anyone else. If people want to listen to the Church that's their choice; it wasn't and isn't up to you to tell people what they can't hear.
Claiming 'it' was a religion driven piece of legislation is an abdication of responsibility; the people who drove 'it' are the people who voted for 'it'. That's not ill informed or lying, it's just telling you something you don't want to hear.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

So if you take an imaginary god out of the picture religious people can be reasoned with? But you agree that there are non religious people that can't. Interesting.

take the imaginary god away and people can use reason. Personal rights are something that tends to be respected in secular societies so laws will emerge to respect these values. The defense of these values should be fought hard for.

Absolam wrote: »

Irish cities seem to be good enough to be considered amongst the best for those surveys? Certainly good enough for me... And I have a feeling that more than a few of the people who move to Irish cities think they're good enough. Does that disparity with your point of view worry you at all?

places like Dublin have risen up the chart and one of the reasons is consigning catholic values to the bin , if Ireland still embraced catholic values of the 1950s then Dublin would be much lower on the scale. As it is there is a good chance abortion would be voted in tomorrow for situations like rape or women forced to carry babies that are either dead or will not live outside the womb. its the system that is not reflecting the belefs of the people

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

The Muslim world proves that statement to be wanting. Where in the world will a rape victim have a greater chance of being charged with immoral activity?

So, just to be absolutely clear, the statement is:
"one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith"
Are you saying Muslims are not capable of being moral beings because they have a faith? There is not a single moral Muslim in the Muslim world?
Or did you just not bother reading what I wrote?

volchitsa wrote: »

Absolam is misrepresenting things (so what else is new?) - man is perfectly capable of developing a moral sense in the absence of religion.

Firstly; do you really want me to recap all the misrepresentations on this thread from, oh, just say the last week? I don't think it's my name that would be appearing, do you?
Secondly, seriously, you really really didn't read what I wrote, did you? Just jumped on the bandwagon without thinking... again.
For the third time;
"one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith"

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is when a religion sets itself up as the arbiter of what morality is. That is what happens when a rape victim is stoned for immorality - the religion involved has substituted its own misogyny for genuine moral sense. And convinced the population that this is not evil. It's no surprise that religions tend to be very keen on educating children. What a chance for propaganda.

I'd say the problem is people who assume they are right regardless of the facts.... and never take the time to consider what's right in front of them. Zealotry is not exclusive to religions these days.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, reasonably old. How about you?
I remember the priests and bishops telling people not to use contraception and all sorts of other things too; I can't say it was dubious given that they think God wants them to shepherd his flock and advise them on how to keep His laws. But I did notice people often decide for themselves regardless of what they're told.
Are you honestly asking what groups or associations were behind the Church telling people what the Churches position was on a moral issue?

There's a difference between telling peple what they should do themselves (not divorce, not use contraception, not have an abortion, and telling people what laws they should vote for or against. That's politics.

Would you like to specify your 'it'? Just so you're clear.

I was referring to the 8th amendment. I'm sure it's true for the others, but I was living abroad for much of that.

And I don't think the Church should hide it's manouvering on any issue; I'm surprised you do. If the Church wants to take a position on an issue, I rather think they should be as free to speak as anyone else. If people want to listen to the Church that's their choice; it wasn't and isn't up to you to tell people what they can't hear.
Claiming 'it' was a religion driven piece of legislation is an abdication of responsibility; the people who drove 'it' are the people who voted for 'it'. That's not ill informed or lying, it's just telling you something you don't want to hear.

It's not people's choice when it becomes a law they had no say in. That is currently the situation, when the constitutional amendment was brought in before pretty much any woman still of child bearing age had a vote.

And I'm not saying people didn't have a vote, I said that the church was the driving force behind the constitutional amendment, not any scientific evidence about the fetus being a person. Thqt being the case, it is dishinest to present opinion as anything other than individual belief, which shoudl not be imposed on others.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

take the imaginary god away and people can use reason.

And they can't use reason if there's an imaginary god around? That's a pretty spurious assertion; there seems to be a plethora of great reasoners through history who imagined there was a god about. How did all those atheists brought up in a religion become atheists without using reason?
No... I think people are quite capable of using reason regardless of taking an imaginary god away.

silverharp wrote: »

Personal rights are something that tends to be respected in secular societies so laws will emerge to respect these values. The defense of these values should be fought hard for.

But, personal rights are something that tends to be respected in religious societies so laws will emerge to respect these values too? The defense of these values should be fought hard for too, surely? Or are you saying that your idea of personal rights are somehow better than religious peoples ideas of personal rights?

silverharp wrote: »

places like Dublin have risen up the chart and one of the reasons is consigning catholic values to the bin , if Ireland still embraced catholic values of the 1950s then Dublin would be much lower on the scale.

Actually, Dublin has been dropping on one of those scales for the last five or so years, but please; show us the evidence that links Dublins move on the charts to consigning catholic values to the bin. Or are you just totally making that up? I think you're totally making it up.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say the problem is people who assume they are right regardless of the facts.... and never take the time to consider what's right in front of them.

Well indeed. And what are the facts concerning the reality of the "personhood" of a fetus?

For example I don't think you told me whether or not you think that women who have a miscarriage should have to prove that their behaviour didn't contribute to the death of this "person" in the way they would if their child was found dead in unexplained circumstances?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

So, just to be absolutely clear, the statement is:
"one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith"
Are you saying Muslims are not capable of being moral beings because they have a faith? There is not a single moral Muslim in the Muslim world?
Or did you just not bother reading what I wrote?

Im not talking about whether Muslims are moral beings or not Im saying that Muslims tend to make or approve of choices which are wrong because of their religious belief system. An example would be their belief in Sharia law

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

There's a difference between telling peple what they should do themselves (not divorce, not use contraception, not have an abortion, and telling people what laws they should vote for or against. That's politics.

And why exactly should people not let their morality inform their politics?

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not people's choice when it becomes a law they had no say in. That is currently the situation, when the constitutional amendment was brought in before pretty much any woman still of child bearing age had a vote.

So, you think we should vote on all the clauses in the Constitution on an annual/decennial/centennial basis? Or just the ones you currently disapprove of? I've no objection to periodically refreshing the Constitution, but I think it would be a cumbersome and expensive process. Regardless, there will always be someone who feels for some reason disenfranchised; unless they're a majority, there's no realistic way to do anything about it.

volchitsa wrote: »

And I'm not saying people didn't have a vote, I said that the church was the driving force behind the constitutional amendment, not any scientific evidence about the fetus being a person. Thqt being the case, it is dishinest to present opinion as anything other than individual belief, which shoudl not be imposed on others.

What scientific evidence is there for personhood? It's a philosophical concept (a business the church has been in for thousands of years). Science may refine the information we use in determining adherence to the criteria we choose to say determines personhood, whether it's the existence of a nervous system, a brain, or brain activity (coherent or otherwise). We can use science to measure what we want to measure, but whether that is considered a measure of personhood will remain a philosophical point. And the driving force behind the constitutional amendment was the votes of the people; whether a person was motivated by their faith, their philosophy, or their understanding of science, it was that persons choice. You may not like that Catholic teaching motivated many voters, but they can't be disenfranchised just because you disagree with their motivation.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Well indeed. And what are the facts concerning the reality of the "personhood" of a fetus?

That personhood is a philosophical concept which can be informed, but not determined, by science. Did I not say that already? I thought I did....

volchitsa wrote: »

For example I don't think you told me whether or not you think that women who have a miscarriage should have to prove that their behaviour didn't contribute to the death of this "person" in the way they would if their child was found dead in unexplained circumstances?

Example of what?
I don't think I told you because I don't think you asked me (actually I'm sure you didn't ask me).
So, take me through exactly how a woman would have to prove they didn't contribute to the death of their child if it was found dead in unexplained circimstances; then we'll use that as a baseline for how that could or should be used in the case of a miscarriage that occurred in unexplained circumstances.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

And why exactly should people not let their morality inform their politics?

I didn't say they shouldn't, I said priests telling people how to vote is an example of priests getting involved in politics, something their own rules discourage. Thought that isn't my main objection to them doing so, I was simoly making the point that you appeared to be claiming there was a non religious explanation for the decision to change the constitution to give the fetus equal rights with its mother. There isn't, it was a purely religious action, and one which the church proudly assumed responsibility for at the time. As you well know, since you say you were round then.

So, you think we should vote on all the clauses in the Constitution on an annual/decennial/centennial basis? Or just the ones you currently disapprove of? I've no objection to periodically refreshing the Constitution, but I think it would be a cumbersome and expensive process. Regardless, there will always be someone who feels for some reason disenfranchised; unless they're a majority, there's no realistic way to do anything about it.

well this is why it's a very bad idea to have a constitution that tries to control future legislation to that extent. A constitution should be an overarching document that is broad enough not to cause problems that need revising regularly.

What scientific evidence is there for personhood? It's a philosophical concept (a business the church has been in for thousands of years). Science may refine the information we use in determining adherence to the criteria we choose to say determines personhood, whether it's the existence of a nervous system, a brain, or brain activity (coherent or otherwise). We can use science to measure what we want to measure, but whether that is considered a measure of personhood will remain a philosophical point. And the driving force behind the constitutional amendment was the votes of the people; whether a person was motivated by their faith, their philosophy, or their understanding of science, it was that persons choice. You may not like that Catholic teaching motivated many voters, but they can't be disenfranchised just because you disagree with their motivation.

If their motivation is to force others to obey their personal morality, based on a philosophical position, and not on science, then yes they certainly should be prevented from doing so. Just as Muslims in Ireland should not (imo) be allowed to apply their personal morality concerning the lesser status of women in court - and yes, that is "just because I don't agree with it", if you wish to put it that way. :rolleyes:

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Im not talking about whether Muslims are moral beings or not Im saying that Muslims tend to make or approve of choices which are wrong because of their religious belief system. An example would be their belief in Sharia law

But you said that the Muslim world proves that the statement "one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith" is wanting. If you're not talking about Muslims being moral beings, how does 'wrong' come into it? Aren't 'right' and 'wrong' moral concepts?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't say they shouldn't, I said priests telling people how to vote is an example of priests getting involved in politics, something their own rules discourage.

But if people can let their religion inform their politics, then they need to listen to their religious leaders in order to do so? So it seems pretty obvious that the priests were obliged to convey the churches position, I can't see how they could have a choice in the matter.

volchitsa wrote: »

Thought that isn't my main objection to them doing so, I was simoly making the point that you appeared to be claiming there was a non religious explanation for the decision to change the constitution to give the fetus equal rights with its mother. There isn't, it was a purely religious action, and one which the church proudly assumed responsibility for at the time. As you well know, since you say you were round then.

But there is a none religious explanation; people voted for it. It's a democratic explanation. It was a purely democratic action, regardless of who took credit for motivating it.

volchitsa wrote: »

well this is why it's a very bad idea to have a constitution that tries to control future legislation to that extent. A constitution should be an overarching document that is broad enough not to cause problems that need revising regularly.

It seems you're proposing a new Republic for us so. I shall observe your political career avidly, but I suspect we won't see your ambitions come to fruit in my lifetime.

volchitsa wrote: »

If their motivation is to force others to obey their personal morality, based on a philosophical position, and not on science, then yes they certainly should be prevented from doing so.

I'd suggest tellling people that you intend to remove the right to vote from people whose motivation you disagree with is not likely to further your political ambitions. The Irish are contentious and disagree over much, but few are likely to prefer a tyrant over democracy. Some will though (some people will do anything) so don't be discouraged.

volchitsa wrote: »

Just as Muslims in Ireland should not (imo) be allowed to apply their personal morality concerning the lesser status of women in court - and yes, that is "just because I don't agree with it", if you wish to put it that way. :rolleyes:

That's a bit different from taking away their vote for having an opinion though?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think I told you because I don't think you asked me (actually I'm sure you didn't ask me).
So, take me through exactly how a woman would have to prove they didn't contribute to the death of their child if it was found dead in unexplained circimstances; then we'll use that as a baseline for how that could or should be used in the case of a miscarriage that occurred in unexplained circumstances.

I did ask, and you replied to the first part of the post, so you clearly saw it. Here it is again.

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you agree that that law was brought into being under the impulsion of religious and not scientific forces?

And should women who have a miscarriage be under some obligation to prove that they didn't cause that miscarriage by careless behaviour? After all, when a person is found dead, there is some onus on the carers to prove they didn't cause that death, albeit by mere negligence.

But no, there's no reason why I should "take you through" anything, I asked you a question about a logical consequence of your stance on personhood. Unless you think that when a person is found dead, it's normal practice just to get on with the burial, and no questions asked?

Satori Rae

It is funny how if things are a religious matter it comes down to it is her body her choice (a book tells us this is the way it is to be).

Yet when a woman actually needs an abortion and lies near death it can be considered the most horrific thing ever to a certain group.

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/04/pregnant-jehovahs-witness-decision-to-refuse-treatment-harrowing-for-hospital-staff-after-mother-and-baby-die/

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I did ask, and you replied to the first part of the post, so you clearly saw it. Here it is again.

Well, you did edit it after you posted it; I'm afraid I don't habitually refresh your posts to see if they've changed before I reply.

volchitsa wrote: »

But no, there's no reason why I should "take you through" anything, I asked you a question about a logical consequence of your stance on personhood. Unless you think that when a person is found dead, it's normal practice just to get on with the burial, and no questions asked?

You asked me whether or not I think that women who have a miscarriage should have to prove that their behaviour didn't contribute to the death of this "person" in the way they would if their child was found dead in unexplained circumstances.
If you can't tell me in what way, how can I tell you whether I think they should have to provide proof in the same way?
And how is it a logical consequence of my stance on personhood?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

But you said that the Muslim world proves that the statement "one thing I suspect almost everyone on this thread will agree with is that morality is not tied to religion; we are perfectly capable of being moral beings with or without faith" is wanting. If you're not talking about Muslims being moral beings, how does 'wrong' come into it? Aren't 'right' and 'wrong' moral concepts?

but morality is tied to religion if you choose to let it , Muslims choose to let religion be tied to morality and come up with solutions which are incompatible with modern civilisation so your statement is wanting

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, Dublin has been dropping on one of those scales for the last five or so years, but please; show us the evidence that links Dublins move on the charts to consigning catholic values to the bin. Or are you just totally making that up? I think you're totally making it up.

there are other factors, economic , taxes, transport etc. however if dublin had to live with catholic based laws for the last 20 or 30 years that were done away with, Dublin would be at a lower ranking because it would lose points for having religious based censorship laws, family planning laws , anti gay laws.
In world terms there are reasons why a cities like Sydney or Berlin are at the top of the list while the first Muslim city is in 74th on one survey I saw which is Abu Dhabi where as it happens rape victims are charged with immoral acts

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you did edit it after you posted it; I'm afraid I don't habitually refresh your posts to see if they've changed before I reply.

Oooh, nasty. And dishonest, seeing as I posted that at 10:43, edited it at 10:47 (quite possibly for a typo) and you replied to it at 11:17. So it wasn't because of my edits that you didn't see the bit you don't have a reply for.

You asked me whether or not I think that women who have a miscarriage should have to prove that their behaviour didn't contribute to the death of this "person" in the way they would if their child was found dead in unexplained circumstances.
If you can't tell me in what way, how can I tell you whether I think they should have to provide proof in the same way?
And how is it a logical consequence of my stance on personhood?

What do you think the Coroner's Court does? Unexplained deaths are usually investigated, and anyone in charge of someone who does unexpectedly while in their charge is likely to find themselves questioned extensively about what exactly happened.

You must know that. So I presume it's just another example of your cognitive dissonance about the issue of pregnancy and what a fetus is. One thing it's not is a person. otherwise it would be treated as one all the time, not just when it doesn't cause too much trouble to the rest of society. Risking the mother's death is fine apparently, but God forbid we should have to pay child benefit to her!

recedite

eviltwin wrote: »

I find the whole notion of doctors waiting for an ill woman to cross the line to the point where her life is in danger before an abortion is allowed quite upsetting...
Let doctors do what they are trained to do without legal issues getting in the way.

These are reasonable points, but a too simplistic IMO, because they attempt to portray abortion as the "cure" for Savita's condition. If that was the case, then pregnancy must have been the disease. As Absolam was at pains to point out here, the actual disease was septicaemia.

It seems there were a number of reasons that the disease took hold. In no particular order these were;

1.The general policy of the particular hospital seems to have been to wait for the foetal heart to stop before evacuating all the infected material from her womb. While this may be the position in Canon Law, it was not the position in Irish law, which allowed abortion as soon as the risk to the life (as opposed to the health) of the mother was identified.

2. A failure of the frontline staff in not employing enhanced monitoring and reporting to the obstetrician when following this "high risk strategy" of the hospital.

3. A failure of the legislature (the Dail) over two decades to remove the obsolete 1861 Offences against the Person Act (protecting the foetus as a "person") from the statute books and failure to replace it with legislation according the x-case constitutional judgement.
Thus allowing confusion over point 1 above to remain, and different hospitals/doctors believing they had some apparent leeway (or obligation) to choose their own interpretations.

4. A possible antibiotic-resistant bacteria which has been known to cause urinary tract infections which have developed into fatalities even in non-pregnant women.

..In Holland, unusual levels of young girls and elderly women dying from UTI infections led Prof Jan Klutymans to survey if E.coli resistant bacteria could be passing from poultry faeces in intensive farming into the human population via chicken meat bought by consumers...

The significance or otherwise of this aspect should have been investigated more thoroughly.

When blame is so widely shared around, it becomes impossible to assign it to any one person or entity. When you combine that with the propensity of the medical profession to close ranks to protect their own, except in the most blatant cases of professional misconduct, you have the reason why nobody was ever sacked as a result of this tragedy.
There are so many "what ifs". What if she had never become pregnant. what if she had not eaten that piece of chicken. What if antibiotics in farm animals were as tightly restricted as they are in humans. What if the law on abortion had been clearer. What if her deteriorating condition had been monitored with the attention it deserved. But the most damning one IMO is what if the removal of the infected foetus had proceeded after she requested it. Because that is when she herself recognised that continuing with any threat to her life was pointless. It is known that the couple wanted the baby, so she would not have made the request unless the pregnancy was already doomed and/or a substantial threat to her life had arisen.