Abortion Discussion

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

But I gave you the reason as stated by their minister. If it really interests you, you can look up the House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967 . I'd link it but you will probably come back with some inane comment that they are not the same individuals that implemented the 1990 act so how would the later committees know how the earlier committees reached their decisions. :pac:

Oh, feel free to link it; the 1967 Act would certainly be where the primary legislation is. You'd think that if the UK considered using viability as a guide, and back up from there, it would at least feature in the discussion on how to formulate the legislation, even if it didn't actually make it into the legislation....
All inanities (like blame the media) aside, it probably would have been a better place to start than the Telegraph

drkpower

David Steele who authored the 1967 act is on the record as stating that the then understood threshold of viability was the basis for the limits within that act.

Absolam

drkpower wrote: »

David Steele who authored the 1967 act is on the record as stating that the then understood threshold of viability was the basis for the limits within that act.

Should be easy for Silverharp to link then, and we can then move on to the rest of the majority of countries

drkpower

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/06/society.health

drkpower

He is right about most countries' abortion laws/term limits being based on or at least influenced by viability.

There are outliers, canada being an obvious example. But Many countries' modern laws followed on from and were influenced by the uk's laws (based on viability) and us law which was also based on viability.

Absolam

drkpower wrote: »

He is right about most countries' abortion laws/term limits being based on or at least influenced by viability.

Oh I've no doubt that many countries legislative approaches were influenced by viability, but that wasn't what Silverharp said

drkpower wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/06/society.health

To be fair, the text of the Infant Life Preservation Act of 1929 would be far more to the point, had Silverharp thought to look it up in the first place he could have moved on to the rest of his assertion straight away...

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Well, drink driving legislation does mention the level of intoxication attained before driving is prohibited; equally abortion legislation based on viability you would imagine ought to mention the level of viability to be attained before abortion is prohibited.

Drink driving legislation needs to mention the level of intoxication otherwise it would be kind of difficult to establish if an offence has been committed. What the legislation does not mention is why the level is as it is. So in you example there is no 'why' given, so it isn't really a good example for you to use, is it?

Absolam wrote: »

Which certainly seems to show that viability was considered when amending the legislation.

Indeed it does. And if you read around the quote I provided you will find indications that the same reasoning was, unsurprisingly, used during the drafting and debates on the the Acts themselves.

Not sure why you are being so difficult here. You are quite familiar with how the law works, and I am pretty sure you know that reasons for the particulars of a given act, certainly of the nature you are asking, are rarely given in the legislations itself. Most people would accept the sources you have been given, public statements by the legislators. In addition to this, I have provided links to Hansard. Why are you still arguing? Whilst I doubt you care, it does people's perception of you no good.

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure why you are being so difficult here. .... Why are you still arguing? Whilst I doubt you care, it does people's perception of you no good.

MrP

I get the impression that Absolam feels that having bogged down the discussion in pointless demands for specific sources is itself a victory of some sort. It doesn't matter to him that he has no actual point to make, it's enough that he effectively blocks the discussion and (I assume he hopes) some people will lose interest and abandon the thread.

I can't think of any plausible alternative reason. He never actually makes a point, afaict, just tries to block discussions from moving forward.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, feel free to link it; the 1967 Act would certainly be where the primary legislation is. You'd think that if the UK considered using viability as a guide, and back up from there, it would at least feature in the discussion on how to formulate the legislation, even if it didn't actually make it into the legislation....
All inanities (like blame the media) aside, it probably would have been a better place to start than the Telegraph

this will be my last link on the 24 week point , I dont want to start phoning MP's and visiting the UK parliament's archive just to confirm a point that was confirmed. This is from the science committee's 12th report commenting on why the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in their 1990 Act

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/104503.htm

Abortion is a complex issue. Legislative decisions are informed by ethical and moral positions, philosophical, religious and political views, case law, clinical practice, and scientific and medical evidence. As a science and technology committee, we have focused only on the scientific, medical and other research evidence. As well as informing the way courts interpret the law, scientific and medical developments can alter the balance of opinion on ethical and moral issues and they often inform legislative decisions. This happened in relation to abortion law in 1990, when evidence of improved outcomes for very premature neonates led to a reappraisal of the threshold of foetal viability and this in turn to the reduction of the then 28 week limit on most abortions to the current 24 week limit. In our inquiry, we have attempted to sift the evidence on scientific and medical developments since the last amendment of the law and since the 1967 Act.

swampgas

volchitsa wrote: »

I get the impression that Absolam feels that having bogged down the discussion in pointless demands for specific sources is itself a victory of some sort. It doesn't matter to him that he has no actual point to make, it's enough that he effectively blocks the discussion and (I assume he hopes) some people will lose interest and abandon the thread.

I can't think of any plausible alternative reason. He never actually makes a point, afaict, just tries to block discussions from moving forward.

Hypothetically speaking ...
Suppose you were absolutely against abortion and keen to maintain the status quo. But also smart enough to see that most people are moving towards a much more liberal position, and even worse, smart enough to know their arguments are very hard to counter.
What could you do? Maybe stalling tactics are all that's left. So try to derail every discussion, maybe in the hope of slowing down the inevitable.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

obplayer

swampgas wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking ...
Suppose you were absolutely against abortion and keen to maintain the status quo. But also smart enough to see that most people are moving towards a much more liberal position, and even worse, smart enough to know their arguments are very hard to counter.
What could you do? Maybe stalling tactics are all that's left. So try to derail every discussion, maybe in the hope of slowing down the inevitable.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Hypothetically speaking I would probably put such a person on ignore.:D

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Drink driving legislation needs to mention the level of intoxication otherwise it would be kind of difficult to establish if an offence has been committed. What the legislation does not mention is why the level is as it is. So in you example there is no 'why' given, so it isn't really a good example for you to use, is it?

In fairness, it wasn't my example, it was Volchitsas, and whilst I agree it was a poor example, nevertheless it was worth noting that whilst legislation doesn't necessarily cite the scientific reasons behind it, it can include the basis for the legislation.

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure why you are being so difficult here.

I think I did say; I just like to know that when someone prefaces a statement with something as authoritative as "I'd be correct in saying that" that they've checked to see if they are, in fact, correct in saying that.

MrPudding wrote: »

Why are you still arguing? Whilst I doubt you care, it does people's perception of you no good.

I rather doubt that many of the pro choice posters on the thread are ever likely to perceive pro life posters in a particularly good light anyway, so I can't say that's much of a concern!

volchitsa wrote: »

I get the impression that Absolam feels that having bogged down the discussion in pointless demands for specific sources is itself a victory of some sort.

Do you also feel you've lost in some way when you fail to provide specifics to back up your points? The one might be the result of the other.....

volchitsa wrote: »

It doesn't matter to him that he has no actual point to make, it's enough that he effectively blocks the discussion and (I assume he hopes) some people will lose interest and abandon the thread.

That's more than a little speculative I'd say, since I've never expressed any of the above myself, but maybe you'd be more comfortable on the thread if you stuck to discussing what I posted, rather than why you imagine I post?

volchitsa wrote: »

I can't think of any plausible alternative reason. He never actually makes a point, afaict, just tries to block discussions from moving forward.

Is there a particular discussion you think I've blocked from moving forward? Happy for you to quote the actual post and we can get the ball rolling on it again, rather than getting bogged down in why you imagine other posters do things....

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

this will be my last link on the 24 week point , I dont want to start phoning MP's and visiting the UK parliament's archive just to confirm a point that was confirmed. This is from the science committee's 12th report commenting on why the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in their 1990 Act

I did point it out a little earlier, and MrPudding rather strongly pointed the way, but the specific statement in the original legislation is here.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking ...
Suppose you were absolutely against abortion and keen to maintain the status quo. But also smart enough to see that most people are moving towards a much more liberal position, and even worse, smart enough to know their arguments are very hard to counter.
What could you do? Maybe stalling tactics are all that's left. So try to derail every discussion, maybe in the hope of slowing down the inevitable.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

If you're worried nothing will get done in Ireland because the Abortion Discusson thread on boards.ie occasionally delves into specifics, you may be slightly overestimating its importance.....

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, feel free to link it; the 1967 Act would certainly be where the primary legislation is.

The 1990 Act is also primary legislation.

You'd think that if the UK considered using viability as a guide, and back up from there, it would at least feature in the discussion on how to formulate the legislation, even if it didn't actually make it into the legislation....

"Even if"? Why would it appear in the legislation? It's there to create clear law, not a "show all working" essay question. (Well, obviously not in Ireland, mind you, but exception that proves the rule.)

Seems to me like the goalposts have implicitly moved from whether "UK uses viability as a guide" to "does it appear as editorial comment in the text of the first Act on the topic". But perhaps you just expressed yourself unclearly with regard to your original intent.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

The 1990 Act is also primary legislation.

Sure, though it's an amendment of the 1967 Act.

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Even if"? Why would it appear in the legislation? It's there to create clear law, not a "show all working" essay question. (Well, obviously not in Ireland, mind you, but exception that proves the rule.)

Well, we've already been there, but the short answer is; it does appear in the legislation.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Seems to me like the goalposts have implicitly moved from whether "UK uses viability as a guide" to "does it appear as editorial comment in the text of the first Act on the topic". But perhaps you just expressed yourself unclearly with regard to your original intent.

You might look at it that way, though the original goalposts were "that the majority of countries would use viability as a guide and back up from there"; Silverharp may not have expressed his intent entirely clearly, but I think we got the idea.

Peregrinus

The UK does indeed use viability as a guide, though it moved away from that slightly in 1990.

Since 1929, it has been an offence to cause the death of an unborn child which is "capable of being born alive". We can agree, I think, that viability is explicitly incorporated into that law? The Act goes on to provide that if a woman has been pregnant for 28 weeks, that is prima facie proof that her child is capable of being born alive. (Meaning that you could, in a particular case, lead evidence to show that, although the pregancy had gone on for longer, the child nevertheless could not be born alive. Or the reverse. But in the absence of any evidence, after 28 weeks a child is presumed to be viable.)\

Right. When the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, it didn't mention any time limits at all. But nor did it amend, repeal or create any exception to the 1929 Act. So any abortion under the 1967 Act (original version) had to take place within 28 weeks, regardless of whether it was being carried out on the "risk to life or health of the mother" ground, or the "disabled child" ground. If you carried out an abortion after 28 weeks, that would be an offence under the 1929 Act, unless you could show that in fact the child could not have been born alive.

In 1990 they amended the Abortion Act so that abortions on the "risk to health" ground had to be carried out within 24 weeks, and we've already seen that this was because they understood that modern medicine had reduced the threshold of viability. But they also amended it to say that abortions carried out on other grounds - substantial threat to maternal life, risk of grave disability, etc would not be offences under the 1929 Act, which mean that the 28-week limit and/or the viability test in that Act are no longer relevant to those abortions. In practice that's a tiny proportion of the abortions carried out in the UK but, for that proportion, there is no express or implicit viability test.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

You might look at it that way, though the original goalposts were "that the majority of countries would use viability as a guide and back up from there"; Silverharp may not have expressed his intent entirely clearly, but I think we got the idea.

Original subgoal, then, perhaps: clearly that's one datapoint. I think we can take that as stipulated, then (or as close as we're going to come, this side of Christ Enthroned in Glory with a Burning Sword).

Perhaps in the case of countries like Sweden, where there's an earlier "on request" threshold and a later "really need a very serious and urgent medical reason" one around the point of viability, one might argue as to which of those is the more significant. Not at all inconsistent with it being a guide, however.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

You might look at it that way, though the original goalposts were "that the majority of countries would use viability as a guide and back up from there"; Silverharp may not have expressed his intent entirely clearly, but I think we got the idea.

Well the alternative is the criteria was personhood of the foetus being the deciding factor, yes?
If so, can you find any mention of this anywhere in any (esp. UK) legislation or debate? Otherwise all we have is viability to go on.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well the alternative is the criteria was personhood of the foetus being the deciding factor, yes?
If so, can you find any mention of this anywhere in any (esp. UK) legislation or debate? Otherwise all we have is viability to go on.

I was going to make a sneer that some countries might ask theologians when the soul enters the body . apparently there are Islamic arguments that suggest that the soul enters the body at the 120 day mark...who knew?

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

I was going to make a sneer that some countries might ask theologians when the soul enters the body . apparently there are Islamic arguments that suggest that the soul enters the body at the 120 day mark...who knew?

But that doesn't remove the fact that we start as a zygote and become a person... if you're not going to say when this happens (or at least admit it does happen, you just don't know when) they you must have the position that none of us are human at all!
God doesn't have to come into it.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But that doesn't remove the fact that we start as a zygote and become a person... if you're not going to say when this happens (or at least admit it does happen, you just don't know when) they you must have the position that none of us are human at all!
God doesn't have to come into it.

I don't know. We start as sperm and egg, come to that, so I'm not sure that looking for a magic point at which a person suddenly comes into existence is useful, with our current level of knowledge. We can't really explain consciousness, even though it's clear that consciousness would be a very useful identifier of the concept of personhood.

Conception is a nice, handy, intuitively logical point in our development - but that's all it is. If we really believed (never mind knew) that a new person occurred at the moment the zygote is formed, how could we possibly condone the selection and destruction of fertilized embryos in IVF clinics around the country? Or the availability of the Morning After Pill?

I think when "personhood" occurs, has to remain a philosophical opinion, not a provable fact, for the time being. It's hard to see how a non-religiously inspired law can be based on anything other than the right if the mother to dispose of her own body as she wishes with as few exceptions to that as possible.

Viability has the advantage of being another intuitively coherent instant, like conception. Neither are inherently better, but viability stands up to more robust examination in real life situations..It doesn't satisfy the religious-minded, but then what will, until we find ourselves like Venezuela, with 10 year olds being forced to give birth?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I think when "personhood" occurs, has to remain a philosophical opinion, not a provable fact, for the time being. It's hard to see how a non-religiously inspired law can be based on anything other than the right if the mother to dispose of her own body as she wishes with as few exceptions to that as possible.

Then we can revert to the question why is a mother required to provide or arrange provision of care for her children after they are born (naturally or pre-term). Why the artificial entitlement to human rights based on current medical technology being able to sustain the baby? It makes even less sense.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then we can revert to the question why is a mother required to provide or arrange provision of care for her children after they are born (naturally or pre-term). Why the artificial entitlement to human rights based on current medical technology being able to sustain the baby? It makes even less sense.

She isn't required to care for them at all. It's simply that since she is given by default the right to care for the child (unlike would-be adoptive mothers for example) she needs to perform an official administrative procedure in order to give up on those rights. The alternative would be a court case after each and every birth over whether the birth parents should be given those rights.

As for medical technology, you are not entirely correct there - but again, that's the fault of incoherent Irish legislation more than anything else. On the case of very premature births, the decision on whether or not to attempt to resuscitate them is in fact taken between doctors and parents, it's absolutely not simply a case of "this can/can't be done" - they do take into account the poor prognosis and in some cases the decision is to let nature take its course. Even though the child could quite possibly have lived, for a while anyway, but not without painful and damaging treatment.

The problem with abortion is that the lawyers are allowed to get involved in what should be a medical decision.
In the same way as the young woman who was declared clinically dead just before Christmas was then kept on life support by the very same doctors who told her family she should be let die.
Lawyers are not a positive addition to medical care, they really aren't.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well the alternative is the criteria was personhood of the foetus being the deciding factor, yes?
If so, can you find any mention of this anywhere in any (esp. UK) legislation or debate? Otherwise all we have is viability to go on.

I don't think so; but if you're arguing that the majority of countries do use (as opposed to should in your opinion use) personhood as a guide, I think you may struggle even more than Silverharp did.

silverharp wrote: »

I was going to make a sneer that some countries might ask theologians when the soul enters the body . apparently there are Islamic arguments that suggest that the soul enters the body at the 120 day mark...who knew?

Christian lore has held it to be variously from conception to 90 days after birth depending, Judaic lore between conception and 'when the child first answers "Amen"'.
Though obviously none of these indicate whether anyone considers the point of ensoulment to be the same point as personhood comes into being.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I think when "personhood" occurs, has to remain a philosophical opinion, not a provable fact, for the time being. It's hard to see how a non-religiously inspired law can be based on anything other than the right if the mother to dispose of her own body as she wishes with as few exceptions to that as possible.

It's equally hard to see why a non-religiously inspired law would ignore the other individual who would be disposed of as a result of those wishes; there's no reason to imagine that only religious inspiration would incline one to believe that such an individual might be permitted its' own right to life before it is born.

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem with abortion is that the lawyers are allowed to get involved in what should be a medical decision.
In the same way as the young woman who was declared clinically dead just before Christmas was then kept on life support by the very same doctors who told her family she should be let die.
Lawyers are not a positive addition to medical care, they really aren't.

Realistically, is there a country that doesn't have a body of medical law? It's not as if there are no legal restrictions on what doctors can do in situations other than potential abortions; there are. Legal Medicine is part of the Medicine curriculum in UCD, as is Jurisprudence, Ethics and Law in Trinity. Doctors are simply subject to legal limits in their profession; the idea that they wouldn't, or shouldn't, be is ridiculous. The fact that you personally object to these particular restrictions doesn't actually mean that lawyers are getting involved in what should be a medical decision, it just means you don't like the particular legal restrictions in this area.

Peregrinus

[QUOTE=volchitsa;95443573I think when "personhood" occurs, has to remain a philosophical opinion, not a provable fact, for the time being. It's hard to see how a non-religiously inspired law can be based on anything other than the right if the mother to dispose of her own body as she wishes with as few exceptions to that as possible.[/QUOTE]
The problem here, surely, is that "the right of the mother to dispose of her own body as she wishes" is also a philosophical opinion, not a provable fact.

And this highlights the sterility of a fundamentalist rights-based discourse about abortion. Dan-Solo can't compel Volchitsa to accept his views about personhood, but equally Volchitsa can't compel Dan_Solo to accept his views about the rights of the mother. And neither of them can claim a privileged position whereby he has a greater right than the other to have his philosophical views reflected reflected in public policy.

Where does this leave us? Is it right that the philosophical views of the majority should prevail? That is itself is a philosophical view which, unsurprisingly, the minority are unlikely to share, and can't be compelled to accept. It seems to me that the challenge is to accept that there is a diversity of views here, and that some of those views are irreconcileable, and that they nevertheless all have the same claim to respect, and then try to frame public policy on abortion in a way that respects these principles.

Difficult, I grant you. But not so difficult, or so doomed to failure, as simply trumpeting your own philosophical convictions and demanding that public policy be based on them, to the exclusion of all inconsistent convictions.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where does this leave us? Is it right that the philosophical views of the majority should prevail? That is itself is a philosophical view which, unsurprisingly, the minority are unlikely to share, and can't be compelled to accept. It seems to me that the challenge is to accept that there is a diversity of views here, and that some of those views are irreconcileable, and that they nevertheless all have the same claim to respect, and then try to frame public policy on abortion in a way that respects these principles.
Difficult, I grant you. But not so difficult, or so doomed to failure, as simply trumpeting your own philosophical convictions and demanding that public policy be based on them, to the exclusion of all inconsistent convictions.

My own point of view;
it may not always be right that the philosophical views of the majority should prevail, but it is almost always the most practicable.
There may be circumstances where it is possible to accommodate both the views of majorities and minorities, and in a 'free' democracy it might be considered one of the highest aspirations of a society to do so, but in general where there is a conflict it is because the views of one infringe on the desired freedom of the other, and it's difficult to see where anything other than a majority view can prevail.
Case in point; either the right of a woman to do as she wishes with her body is impinged, or the right of the unborn to live is impinged. So long as there is no solution that can accommodate both equally, the view of the majority necessarily prevails.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem here, surely, is that "the right of the mother to dispose of her own body as she wishes" is also a philosophical opinion, not a provable fact.

And this highlights the sterility of a fundamentalist rights-based discourse about abortion. Dan-Solo can't compel Volchitsa to accept his views about personhood, but equally Volchitsa can't compel Dan_Solo to accept his views about the rights of the mother. And neither of them can claim a privileged position whereby he has a greater right than the other to have his philosophical views reflected reflected in public policy.

Where does this leave us? Is it right that the philosophical views of the majority should prevail? That is itself is a philosophical view which, unsurprisingly, the minority are unlikely to share, and can't be compelled to accept. It seems to me that the challenge is to accept that there is a diversity of views here, and that some of those views are irreconcileable, and that they nevertheless all have the same claim to respect, and then try to frame public policy on abortion in a way that respects these principles.

Difficult, I grant you. But not so difficult, or so doomed to failure, as simply trumpeting your own philosophical convictions and demanding that public policy be based on them, to the exclusion of all inconsistent convictions.

How very Rawlsian of you.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

How very Rawlsian of you.

MrP

Well, we have to try something. The present discourse isn't working!